Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (OMNIBUS SERVICES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered: to be read the Third time tomorrow.

ULLAPOOL PIER (WORKS) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Ullapool Pier (Works): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 21 December and to be printed [Bill 47.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Collin and Annan Bypasses

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when construction work will commence on the Collin bypass and the Annan bypass, respectively, on the A75 trunk road.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Construction of the Collin bypass will start this financial year if outstanding objections can be resolved, and that of the Annan bypass in 1985, subject to satisfactory conclusion of the required economic appraisal and statutory procedures.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great disappointment at the lack of progress on the A75, especially with the Annan bypass? Will he consider setting up a task force now to meet the farmers and other interested parties to decide whether a public inquiry is necessary? Is he further aware of the strong feeling that there is a lack of urgency in his Department to get the bypass constructed?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong feelings about that bypass. We have an impressive continuing programme of improvement on the A75. My hon. Friend will know that we have received about 50 objections to the published proposals on the Annan bypass. I assure him that my officials and staff are doing everything that they can to resolve those objections as quickly as possible. We shall then decide whether a public inquiry is necessary.

Council House Sales

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many former public sector tenants have now bought their own homes since May 1979; how many tenants have indicated a wish to buy but have not yet had their transactions completed; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The reported number of sitting tenants who have bought their houses between 1 April 1979 and 30 September 1982 is nearly 28,000. An estimated 38,000 or so other tenants have applied to buy since May 1979. Of these, just over 8,000 have concluded missives.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that moderately encouraging reply. Is he aware that in Fife, the Glenrothes development corporation, the Dunfermline district council and the Kirkcaldy district council have sold more than 1,000 houses to sitting tenants? Is he further aware that even the smaller North-East Fife district council has sold more than 700 houses? Does he agree that if the same proportion of houses as have been sold in Fife had been sold throughout Scotland he would have been able to announce double the figures that he has just announced? Will he ask other authorities to emulate the Fife example, which has been helpful both to ratepayers and to tenants?

Mr. Allan Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. District councils tenants in Fife have shown wisdom and acumen in these matters. I assure my hon. Friend that there has been a sustained increase in the number of applications to buy throughout Scotland since February. I hope that it will not be too long before the rest of Scotland reaches the levels that have already been achieved in Fife.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Minister make clear for the purpose of statistics at what stage he regards a sale as having been made? Is it at the time when the local authority agrees, or when the missives are delivered?

Mr. Allan Stewart: When the missives are delivered. The right hon. Gentleman has tabled a detailed written question on precisely that point, which I am answering.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that Kirkcaldy district council bitterly resents being compelled by the Government to sell houses that it does not want to sell because such sales prevent people on the waiting list getting houses for rent? Does he agree that, despite that, it has always been the policy of successive Governments, especially with regard to new towns, to sell houses built by private enterprise for sale and if the development corporation is a willing seller?

Mr. Allan Stewart: Sales do not affect the total housing stock. Kirkcaldy district council has asked to see me because its present estimate of sales far exceeds its earlier one. That demonstrates the substantial interest of tenants in purchasing houses in Kirkcaldy.

Mr. Corrie: Has any problem arisen in rural areas with small stocks of houses, some of which have to be kept for essential jobs? Have any councils been in touch with my hon. Friend on this matter?

Mr. Allan Stewart: I assure my hon. Friend that I have received no such representations recently.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that bitter experience shows that the best and most popular part of the


housing stock is being sold off? Is he aware that the public sector housing stock is therefore being grievously impoverished by Government policies? On the alleged success of the campaign, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the outturn of capital receipts in Scotland in 1982–83, which largely consist of council house sales, is £16 million lower than the Government expected and that the estimate for 1983–84 suggests a major tailing off in their expectations about the sale of council houses?

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. People in all income groups throughout Scotland are applying to buy their houses. There has been an interesting spate of applications from the Gorbals area of Glasgow. I assure the hon. Gentleman that resources from the sale of houses are available for local authorities to improve their general housing stock.

Elderly and Disabled People (Hypothermia)

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to minimise the risks to elderly and disabled people from hypothermia and cold-related illnesses in the coming winter.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My Department intends to keep closely in touch with local authorities and health boards throughout the winter. I am confident that these authorities will do all they can to combat the risks to the elderly of hypothermia.

Mr. Foulkes: That is a pathetic answer. Is the Minister aware that nearly 10,000 Scots will die of hypothermia and cold-related diseases this winter? Why has he cut the money to the Scottish health education group so that it can no longer produce valuable heating packs? Why has he abandoned the "good neighbour" scheme introduced by the late Frank McElhone? Is it the Government's policy to let these old people die of starvation?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman does nothing for his case by gross overstatement of the figures. They are absurdly overstated. The Scottish health education group has run campaigns and will do so again this winter. On 9 December a television programme called "Bodyline" drew attention to the need to keep warm this winter. Reference was made to the availability of written material from a distribution centre giving advice to organisations and people who seek it.

Mr. Ancram: Apart from direct action, will my hon. Friend consider issuing a statement reminding citizens that it is their moral duty to keep an eye on their neighbours and to ensure, so far as possible, that they do not suffer or die alone or unnoticed? Does he agree that the phrase "the caring society" refers not only to Government institutions, but to the population at large?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that all people should be aware of their obligations towards their elderly neighbours. One of the main dangers is that elderly people who become ill or suffer injury are left alone for longer than they should be. It is therefore important that neighbours should keep an eye on their elderly friends and relatives.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that there is considerable information to the effect that the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire

(Mr. Foulkes) are correct and that the Government are cutting the amount of money available to help the elderly to avoid the worst excesses of a bad winter? Is it not a national scandal that old people are being treated in this manner by a heartless Government?

Mr. MacKay: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman repeating the nonsense uttered by his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). I must inform both hon. Gentlemen that in 1981, 193 death certificates gave hypothermia as the primary or secondary cause of death among those aged 65 or over. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) does not realise how strong his voice is. He must try to control himself and allow others to have a chance.

Mr. MacKay: These figures do not differentiate between hypothermia due to inadequate heating and hypothermia from exposure following illness or alcoholic intoxication. The figures given by both hon. Gentlemen are at variance with the facts.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that assistance is being given to those suffering from senile dementia, a considerable number of whom may be at risk from hypothermia? Will he also confirm that everything possible is done to ensure that a ticket to hospital is not a one-way ticket for those concerned?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the circumstances of elderly people who may suffer some degree of confusion. This underlines the point that I have already made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). It is important that people should have regard for their elderly neighbours during the cold weather and at other times of the year.

Youth Unemployment

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives he has taken in the past 12 months to alleviate the problem of youth unemployment in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): We have announced the new youth training scheme, which will provide 12 months' education and training for all unemployed 16-year-olds from September 1983. The quality of places available under the youth opportunities programme has been improved. Information technology centres have been established to give unemployed young people training in the new technologies and we have introduced the young workers scheme to encourage employers to take on more young people as full-time employees.

Mr. Hamilton: Despite cosmetic exercises, including the cooking of the figures by the Secretary of State for Employment, does the hon. Gentleman agree that youth unemployment and unemployment generally are going remorselessly upwards? Does he accept that nothing that the Government have done or intend to do will stop that trend? Does he recognise that the only long-term way to provide real jobs for these young people and others is to undertake massive public investment in housing, construction, communications and the rest?

Mr. Fletcher: Everyone is concerned about unemployment, especially among young people. That is why the


Government have taken the steps that I have mentioned. It is not public sector investment that is the main requirement but private sector investment in a healthy economy. The Government's steps to reduce inflation and interest rates are taking us in the right direction. There is nothing cosmetic about the youth training scheme. Employers who take on three additional trainees for every two recruited in the normal way will be eligible for a training grant of £1,850 for all the trainees. That provides real job opportunities for young people.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that boys and girls who are willing to undertake further training after leaving school are at a disadvantage compared with those who go into dead-end jobs? Will he investigate this problem in rural areas and ensure that the disadvantage is removed?

Mr. Fletcher: That is not a new problem. Those staying on at school have always given up the immediate prospect of earning money in a job. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the £25 allowance, the Government agree that it could create problems. However, under the youth opportunities programme, there is no evidence to suggest that young people who would not normally do so have been leaving school just to take advantage of one of the schemes.

Mr. Myles: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the employment of young females in rural areas? Is he aware that if the young females stay, so will the young males?

Mr. Fletcher: I am always happy to accept my hon. Friend's advice, particularly on the rural economy and the habits of nature.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am tempted to ask the Minister to comment on the old females in rural areas when the old males stay there.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is growing concern that £1,850 is not sufficient to cover the total cost of the content in the new training programme for the mode A scheme? Does the hon. Gentleman also accept, in respect of the mode B scheme, that local authorities, both district and regional, will be required to provide the bulk of the training places? Will the Minister discuss with local authorities the real difficulties seen by the authorities in providing training places under the mode B scheme?

Mr. Fletcher: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is experiencing some difficulties of old age. The £1,850 is not insignificant when it is allocated to each training place. It helps employers to take on more people. That is why it has been introduced. Through the Manpower Services Commission we are in constant touch with local authorities about the training scheme. The budget for the YTS will meet the cost of the training that will be carried out in further education colleges. It is not intended that local authorities should bear that cost.

Council House Modernisation (Edinburgh)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make extra funds available to Edinburgh district council for its programme of modernisation of council houses in Edinburgh.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The district council has not suggested that the funds available to it are insufficient to enable it to carry through its programme.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the number of empty houses and the general deterioration in a number of Edinburgh council housing schemes is almost a national scandal? Will he approach his political colleagues who control the council and make it clear that they have a responsibility to carry out repairs on those estates, especially those, such as Bingham in my constituency, which desperately need radical improvement programmes?

Mr. Stewart: I believe that Edinburgh has a very responsible housing authority. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that Edinburgh district council increased expenditure for modernisation from £2·5 million in 1980–81 to £4·4 million in 1981–82, which was 36 per cent. of its total allocation.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in several Edinburgh constituencies the problem of vacant council houses is very serious? Will he confirm that the council would be right to try to deal effectively with that problem as it did with Martello Court?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem of vacant houses can be dealt with through the kind of innovation that was applied at Martello Court, through homesteading and methods of tenant participation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries on this question must be limited to Edinburgh.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister bring to the attention of Edinburgh district council the progressive policies of, for example, Monklands district council, which has very forward-looking schemes for modernisation on which to spend money if the Minister would make it available?

Mr. Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that Edinburgh district council is aware of innovations in Monklands, as in all other local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: Will my hon. Friend discuss with Edinburgh district council the need to revise its definition of dampness to include condensation caused solely or primarily by faults in the construction of council houses which are not the fault of the tenants but which lead to excessive heating bills? Does he agree that until that situation is changed there will be a positive disincentive to councils to undertake the necessary remedial insulation that would solve the problem?

Mr. Stewart: The difference between dampness and condensation is essentially that condensation is internal.—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is still wet."]—We are undertaking a great deal of research into this matter. I assure my hon. Friend that Edinburgh district council, like all authorities, has been requested to pay specific attention to the need to combat dampness when drawing up its future programmes.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Maxton to ask question No. 6.

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped to have the chance to ask a question, as other hon. Members from Edinburgh have done so.

Mr. Speaker: I want to be fair. I thought that the hon. Gentleman came from further north than Edinburgh. I will certainly call him.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that when he quotes statistics he is really saying that there are lies, damned lies and Tory propaganda, given how greatly the council tenants of Edinburgh—and that includes Leith—are suffering because of cuts in maintenance? Will he come to my constituency to see the suffering of working people there and then admit that what he has said today is not true?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to get on with.

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry but not surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the statistics, but they are accurate. I am always delighted to go and see housing in different parts of Scotland. In Edinburgh, I visited Pilton with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton).

Greater Glasgow Health Board (Expenditure)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he plans to meet the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the board's future expenditure plans.

Mr. John. MacKay: I met the chairman and members of the Greater Glasgow health board on 2 September this year to discuss the financial situation of the board and the provision of health services generally in Glasgow. Since then I have met the chairman on several occasions, the most recent being on Monday. I have no plans at present to have further discussions on the board's future financial plans.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister nevertheless make arrangements to go with Sir Simpson Stevenson to see the appalling state of health care at Castlemilk? Having done so, and having discussed the problems with community representatives in the area, will he ensure that the health board receives extra money to build a proper health centre for that community?

Mr. MacKay: I have just received an invitation from the hon. Gentleman to visit Castlemilk, and I am always ready to discuss matters with hon. Members. The actual expenditure of the Greater Glasgow health board is a matter for the board to decide, but only a fortnight ago I opened the splendid health centre that it has built at Bridgeton. I am confident that the board is well aware of the problems in various parts of the city, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the resources available to the National Health Service in Scotland have increased in real terms and that this applies also to Glasgow?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. The total money available to the National Health Service in Scotland has increased greatly during the term of this Government. To be fair to the Greater Glasgow health board, however, as it was one of the better funded boards, the increase there has been less than the average to allow the less well funded health boards in Scotland to catch up.

Mr. Millan: Is not the Minister well aware that in the current year there has been a decrease, not an increase, in

real terms due to the operation of the share formula in Glasgow? Is he further aware that this is causing great concern and major constituency problems and that services such as psychogeriatric provision and care for the mentally handicapped, which are supposed to be health priorities for the Government, are suffering as a result? Will the Government therefore re-examine the whole position as it is causing enormous concern in the medical profession and throughout Glasgow?

Mr. MacKay: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's general point about the position of Glasgow in relation to the share allocation. Nevertheless, its expenditure allocation this year is about £316 million, and it feels that it is about £6 million short. I am sure that by good housekeeping a saving of £6 million can be achieved within that total, especially if the position of other boards which have been historically underfunded can be improved as a result. [Interruption.] It ill-becomes the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), who started the share formula on its way, to interrupt from a sedentary position.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Whatever the predilections of rich people in the London metropolitan area, will the Minister ensure that there are no inroads into the Health Service in Scotland of the kind that the Government have suggested in some parts of the United Kingdom? Does he agree that there is no place in Scotland for the kind of private medicine that the Government are trying to encourage?

Mr. MacKay: The allocation of money to the Health Service in Scotland is unrelated to the situation in London. We intend to continue the share distribution formula in order to be fair to health boards which, historically, have been underfunded. I am certain that private medicine has a place in the general sphere of medicine in this country. If an individual wishes to use private medical facilities, in a free country he must have the right to do so.

Mr. Corrie: Although my hon. Friend agrees that the share formula perhaps does not work so well for Glasgow, does he agree that, for boards such as the Ayrshire and Arran board, it works even less well and there is a desperate shortage of funds?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend draws specific attention to one of the least well funded boards in Scotland. It is because of the position of that and other boards that both this Government and the Labour Government decided to take a responsible all-Scotland position. That is why the share formula was started and why we intend to continue it.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister take on board the simple point that the share formula was never intended to reduce in real terms the resources provided to any board? There must be a continuation of more equitable sharing out of the total resources to the health boards. However, the system works in a way which, especially in Glasgow, means that it is impossible for the Greater Glasgow health board to meet the Government's priorities, quite apart from doing what it wishes in expanding its services.

Mr. MacKay: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that he appreciates the need for shares. I readily accept that one problem in Glasgow has been the excessive rate increases that the health board has had to bear from the district and regional councils and the increased pay awards that have been made during the past two years.


However, I reiterate that, with an expenditure allocation of £316 million, the Greater Glasgow health board can keep within it and not overshoot it by £6 million.

Housing Repair Grants (Glasgow)

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future financial provision for private sector housing repair grants in Glasgow.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Glasgow district council has at present a large number of applications before it for repairs grant. District councils were informed on 16 November that they may increase their expenditure on home improvement and repairs grants without limit during the remainder of 1982–83. I shall give provisional allocations to councils for their housing expenditure in 1983–84 very shortly. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if authorities that are anxious to make progress with grant-aided improvement and repairs work can show next year that they need more resources for it, additional allocations to meet those needs will be given.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for his reply, which is most welcome. However, will he guarantee that that money will not be made available at the expense of the home loans scheme, the slum clearance scheme or the environmental improvement grant scheme?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. The allocations on the HRA account are on a different basis. If an authority can show that it has devoted 80 per cent. of its non-HRA block grant to improvement and repair grants, it can incur additional expenditure above that without limit in 1983–84.

Mr. Maxton: Has the Minister had discussions either with Glasgow district council or with COSLA on the level of rateable value above which such grants will not be provided?

Mr. Stewart: I have received representations from COSLA on that point and they are being considered. I welcome the interest of COSLA in this matter and I welcome especially the fact that COSLA has agreed to participate in a review of the details of the improvement and repair grant system which now has an increasingly important role in Scottish housing policy.

Mr. Dewar: Am I correct in thinking that the Minister said yesterday that the allocation of the non-HRA account would be similar to last year? If the additional money for the repair grants can be provided only after 80 per cent. of the allocation has been spent on repair grants, does that mean that slum clearance, home loans and environmental grants will be confined to 20 per cent. of a budget largely similar to last year's?

Mr. Stewart: The remainder of the non-HRA budget will be confined to 20 per cent. of the total. A district council must show that it is giving priority to improvement and repair grants. When it has done so, additional expenditure can then be incurred without limit. I hope that that will be widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know that it will be warmly welcomed by all those who have an interest in housing improvements in Scotland.

Industrial Regeneration

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he plans to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the prospects for industrial regeneration in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: I frequently meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss industrial issues.

Mr. Ancram: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Scottish Trades Union Congress, will he discuss with it the need for the congress to control its local officials? Will he remind the congress that the hot-headed local industrial action at Hoover's put in jeopardy that vital plant and the jobs and hopes that go with it? Will he also point out that industrial resurgence in Scotland depends on stable industrial relations and responsibile trade unionism?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. Everyone must play a part in the improvement of Scotland's industrial performance. I am glad that the problems at Hoover's seem to have been resolved and I hope that the company can now go ahead and produce more goods with increased profits.

Dr. Bray: One matter on which the Secretary of State has received representations from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and from hon. Members on both sides of the House is the need to preserve the independence of Scottish companies. Is he aware that there has been a leak from either the Mergers and Monopolies Commission or the Department of Trade about the Charter Consolidated bid for Anderson Strathclyde, saying that the Monopolies Commission has recommended that the bid should go through? Does he agree that that has prejudiced proceedings under the Fair Trading Act? Will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that such a bid, which will undermine a vital firm in the Scottish engineering industry, will be blocked?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I am not responsible for leaks in newspapers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has received a copy of the MMC report and he must consider the case.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: When the Secretary of State meets the STUC, will he present it with a balance sheet of the figures, which were absent during our previous Question Time, of the 7,000 closures that have taken place as against, on balance, the 8,000 firms that he said were registered for VAT and the insignificant number of jobs that those 8,000 firms can provide? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need a major initiative to bring new jobs to Scotland?

Mr. Younger: The Government are undertaking many major initiatives on many fronts. The right hon. Gentleman knows the details of those initiatives as well as I do. As to the balance, the only point that I was trying to make during our previous Question Time was that it is not the case that a smaller number of companies are coming into existence than are going out of existence. I accept that new companies starting up do not employ as many people as do old companies going out of business. That is the sad difficulty that we have had to face in recent years.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are extremely grateful for his


outstanding efforts on behalf of the Scottish steel industry? Is he further aware that unemployment could be eased substantially if local authorities would provide green field and brown field sites to the construction industry to get on with building houses, which it is anxious to do? However, it has nowhere in which to do it.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. I too, have been worried about the lack of ground available for such development. I shall do what I can through my Department to encourage authorities to make land available for construction.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Will the Secretary of State remind his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) that the principal reason for the Hoover management's decision to keep open the Cambuslang plant last year was the fact that it had good industrial relations? Will he further suggest to his hon. Friend that interventions by hon. Members who know very little about the position at Cambuslang assist neither the management nor the trade unions in working out the good system that has been achieved?

Mr. Younger: I need not remind my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) of any of the details of those cases, because he follows them closely. I was encouraged when Hoover decided to place its major development in Scotland. I hope that the factory can now look forward to stable industrial relations and a prosperous future.

Mr. Millan: As to the Secretary of State's meeting yesterday with the STUC about the Scottish steel industry, hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome it if the outcome of the current review is that all the five major integrated steel plants are retained. However, we do not accept that that is the final extent of the Government's responsibility in this matter. We shall not accept the Government shuffling off the responsibility to the British Steel Corporation. Is the Secretary of State aware that there could be damaging rundowns at the Ravenscraig plant, added to the redundancies at Craigneuk and elsewhere, that would make the plant so uneconomic that it could be a victim of complete closure at a later date? A major rundown at Ravenscraig would be as unacceptable as a complete closure.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate and share the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the steel industry. Major decisions must still be taken, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry hopes to make a statement next week, which we must await.

Art Teachers

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in raising Scottish art teachers to the level of salary and status of their counterparts in England.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: All the Scottish art colleges now offer students in art and design the opportunity of pursuing a course leading to an honours degree which is recognised as such for salary purposes.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that that does not answer the question which has dragged on for a number of years? Can he assure the House that Scottish arts

students, whose courses are one year longer than those of their counterparts in England, will be equal in status and salary to people who qualify south of the border?

Mr. Fletcher: They are equal in salary status. Where they hold an old-type Scottish diploma they have to sit a short extra course to bring their qualifications up to date.

Mr. Stewart: Why?

Mr. Fletcher: That was a decision taken by the Scottish teachers' salaries committee in 1977.

Unemployment Trends

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on trends in unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: After some deterioration in the middle quarters of the year, the latest figures for October and November point to some easing in the rate of increase in unemployment. Over the past year the gap between Scotland and United Kingdom rates of unemployment has narrowed from 1·9 percentage points to 1·7 percentage points.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the figures he has given are inaccurate, as we have had an upsurge of unemployment in Scotland? Is he further aware that the people of Scotland are now most despondent because the Government's policies are not working? Will he assure us that the over-forties will get a job some time during the Government's lifetime. If he cannot give that assurance, will he fight once and for all for Scotland, and if the Cabinet does not agree with him will he and his hon. Friends on the Front Bench resign, as a sign that they are fighting tenaciously for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman said that the figures were inaccurate. He did not produce any evidence to support that and, of course, they are totally accurate. The differential between Scotland and England has marginally improved. It is also worth noting that, as regards the index of industrial production, during the year ending June 1982, in the United Kingdom total industrial production fell by 0·6 per cent. whereas in Scotland it rose by 1·6 per cent. In the United Kingdom, manufacturing production fell by 0·4 per cent. and in Scotland it rose by 2·1 per cent. It is encouraging news for Scotland compared with the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maclennan: Can the Secretary of State clarify his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) when he said that the Government were engaged in major new initiatives of which he would know and which would lead to new jobs? Is the Secretary of State referring to developments in the North sea, North Alwyn and the Clyde? That cannot be regarded as doing more than replacing existing jobs?

Mr. Younger: If one puts it that way, all efforts to produce new jobs are replacing existing jobs. The list is far too long for me to give all the other initiatives, but we start with the industrial development drive and continue with the youth training scheme and the £2 billion of help for unemployed people. Those are major initiatives by any standard.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's White Paper on defence, which announced that frigates were to be built by Yarrow's on the Clyde, is good news for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. I am somewhat surprised that we did not find an early-day motion on the Order Paper tabled by Opposition Members welcoming that decision.

Mr. Craigen: What effect on employment trends does the Secretary of State expect from his further pressures on local authorities in Scotland and on public expenditure generally?

Mr. Younger: My policy is directed to increasing employment in industry and wherever it can be productive. In Scottish local authorities there are approximately 10 more persons per thousand population employed than in local authorities in England. The cost falls entirely on the ratepayers and taxpayers, who are finding it hard to carry the burden.

Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that we are not interested in the reduction in the rate of increase of unemployment? We are looking for a reduction in unemployment. The Chancellor has calculated that over the next year unemployment in the United Kingdom will increase by no less than 300,000. What is the Scottish percentage of that and when will the figure start to decrease?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman spent five years in office looking for a reduction in unemployment, but presided over its doubling. He knows all about that. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, when at the Dispatch Box he always refused to make forecasts of unemployment. I believe that on that, at least, he was right.

Highlands and Islands Development Board (Land Use)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the effectiveness of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in relation to encouraging more efficient land use.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: It is the policy of the Highlands and Islands Development Board to encourage the best use of natural resources within its area. Given the poor quality of much of the land in its area I am satisfied that the board makes every effort to encourage the most appropriate use of land and to promote alternative uses where these can be profitable.

Mr. Johnston: Does the Minister agree that the board considers that its powers in relation to this are inadequate, as it has stated in representations to the Government? In a case such as the Knoydart estate, which the Ministry of Defence is considering purchasing, does the board have any opportunity to express a view that can be taken into account?

Mr. Fletcher: On the first point, the chairman of the board made it clear in this year's annual report that the board would not be pursuing any extension of its powers in regard to land use. The proposals for the Knoydart estate are a matter in the first instance for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I am aware that he is

at present consulting the Highland regional council. I do not believe that the House would expect my right hon. Friend or myself to comment further on such a matter.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister saying that he has no interest in what happens eventually to the Knoydart estate? The estate does not belong to the Ministry of Defence. Does the Minister accept that it would be much better to give the HIDB far greater powers for the acquisition of land, planning and decisions about developing land use once that land has been acquired? The Minister should not sit back and allow his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to decide the future of an important piece of land in the north of Scotland, which is badly needed for purposes other than defence.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman's ignorance out of office is equalled only by his ignorance in office. He seems to know nothing about the fact that my right hon. Friend, like his right hon. Friend when he was Secretary of State, has a planning duty and therefore it would be incorrect for my right hon. Friend or myself to make any further comment.

Mr. Corrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that some conservation groups, through their blind passion to preserve everything, are holding back development in much of the Highlands? Is he aware that the development of land for agriculture and the creation of new jobs has been stopped by some of those groups?

Mr. Fletcher: I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend. There are some groups in some parts of the Highlands that are rather uncertain whether they want fresh employment opportunities, judging by their attitude to schemes that are put forward. Such schemes are given the most careful consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that there is great disappointment in the Highlands that the HIDB has never used its existing powers with regard to land? The Highlands requires legislation to wipe out the curse of landlordism once and for all.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I disagree totally with the Socialism that he advocates in the second part.

Building Regulations

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to bring Scottish building regulations into line with those of England and Wales.

Mr. Allan Stewart: In the review of our regulations, as already announced, we are noting developments in England and Wales. But we must have close regard to the views of Scottish interests and the different emphases in building design and practice north and south of the border.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the scope, form and administration of building regulations in England and Wales will be radically altered, I believe to the benefit of all, if parts II and III of the current Housing and Building Control Bill 1982 go through? Does he think it would be appropriate then to change the Scottish regulations, wherever practical, to bring them into line with the rest of Great Britain? Does he think that there is


a good case for strengthening the Scottish thermal insulation standards to bring them into line with those in England and Wales?

Mr. Stewart: With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, I assure him that we continue to pay the closest attention to developments in England and Wales. I entirely agree with the objective of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction of simplifying building regulations. I accept what my hon. Friend says about thermal insulation standards. We shall be introducing regulations to require higher standards in Scotland in the interests of energy conservation and to harmonise building standards throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister satisfied that the building firm of Barratt is complying with all the building regulations? Is it not building the slums of tomorrow in Scotland? Is the Minister aware that I and many others would not have one of those houses as a gift?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman wishes to dictate his preferences to others. Barratt is subject to the same building regulations as every other builder. Private builders build houses that people want to live in, where they want to live and at prices that they can afford. The hon. Gentleman might not like that, but the process is of great benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Breach of the Peace (Statistics)

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people in Scotland were charged with a breach of the peace during 1981; and how many were convicted.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): In 1981, 39,697 persons were proceeded against on a charge of breach of the peace. Of these, 36,352 had the charge proved against them.

Mr. Brown: Is not the charge of breach of the peace a crude catch-all device to convict people whether or not they are guilty?

Mr. Robert Atkins: It certainly caught the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: Does it not bring the courts into disrepute, particularly when it is used against political activists who rightly demonstrate against the Government, against mass unemployment and against cuts in living standards? Will the Solicitor-General do something about this?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no intention of altering the crime of breach of the peace. The figures show that there are serious incidents that must be dealt with at law. Freedom of speech or the liberty of the individual would not be protected by allowing those who call themselves political activists to engage in disorderly conduct.

Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that causing fear to the lieges must never be allowed to become a substitute for democratic dialogue?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. If Members of Parliament and ordinary members of the public do not have an abiding respect for the law, no one else can be expected to.

Mr. Foulkes: Is it not the case—[Interruption.] I am trying to be quiet. If two police officers testify that a person's conduct is likely to cause a breach of the peace, is it not difficult to offer any defence except that of alibi? As someone can be charged with a breach of the peacef, even for talking a little too loudly—irrespective of any individual case that the Solicitor-General may be thinking of—does not the situation genuinely need to be looked at?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: One safeguard of the liberty of the individual and freedom from conviction in Scotland is the requirement for corroboration. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's objection. It is an important safeguard that should be retained.

Vandalism

Mr. Ancram: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many charges of vandalism have been brought by his Department in the past six months.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The latest figures available for charges of vandalism are for 1981, when 2,619 persons were prosecuted. Of these, 2,379 were convicted. The only figures available for 1982 are for the number of compensation orders made following conviction. During the six-month period from 1 April to 30 September over 900 cases of vandalism were subject to compensation orders.

Mr. Ancram: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the increasing anxiety and fear, particularly among the elderly, in constituencies such as mine about vandalism? Will his Department ensure that the invidious crime is dealt with by consistent and effective prosecution?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The figures are unacceptably high. It will be the Crown Office's policy to ensure that, where possible, people who have committed crimes of vandalism are caught, prosecuted and, we hope, convicted. An important feature of the new crime of vandalism is that about two-thirds of the cases have attracted compensation orders, which are of great benefit to the victims.

Mr. Maxton: How many people convicted of the new crime of vandalism would have been convicted anyway under another part of Scottish legislation? Is this not purely a cosmetic exercise, as the offenders would have been charged anyway?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures. I am surprised that, after two years, he still takes that attitude. Is he aware that SCOLAG believes that having the specific crime of vandalism brings the situation home to the offenders, the victims and the public at large?

Mr. Myles: Would not a little bit of corporal punishment administered shortly after the incident reduce the number of such crimes?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am happy to say that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dewar: Is not the Solicitor-General a little alarmed and annoyed by the fact that the Conservative Party chairman in Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), after four years of


Conservative Government has anxiously to seek assurance that the Crown Office is doing its best to combat vandalism?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Not at all. When we introduced the crime the hon. Gentleman opposed it and said that it was purely a cosmetic exercise. It is recognised in Scotland as a useful addition to our armoury in the fight against crime, particularly when accompanied by a compensation order.

Mr. Ron Brown: When will we deal with the vandals in the Government who are responsible for mass unemployment, cuts in our living standards and other ills? Should not the workers have the right to demonstrate, and will not demonstrations occur more frequently as the situation gets worse? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the Government will inevitably have to face a winter of discontent?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, Sir.

Questioning of Suspects (Tape Recordings)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what guidance he has given to procurators fiscal about the use of tape recordings made by the police on the questioning of suspects detained under section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the procurator fiscal service is making full use of tape-recorded questioning of suspects.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Although no specific guidance has been issued on the use of tape recordings, those procurators fiscal in the experiment are closely involved with the monitoring exercise. I am satisfied that they are making full use of tape recording.

Mr. Dewar: Why are the Solicitor-General and his colleagues in the Scottish Office refusing to publish the report prepared by the Scottish Home and Health Department in the first two years of the experiment? Is it not wrong and a serious discourtesy to the House that we have to rely on selective leaks to the press? Does not such a procedure damage rather than protect the police? To refute the suggestion in The Economist this week that the police have systematically avoided tape recording by preliminary interviews before the suspect is taken to the police station, should not the Government publish the report in full so that we can make a judgment on the evidence?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The experiment is being conducted by the Scottish Office under the guidance of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has been advised in a written answer that the report has been kept confidential to ensure a free and frank exchange of views with the police. I deprecate the fact that the report has been leaked. It will not help those involved to iron out and properly resolve the difficulties if at every turn confidential reports are subjected to publication.

Mr. Maxton: Is it not a disgraceful breach of the promises made by the hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor during the passing of the Criminal Justice Bill that the report is not being made available to Members of Parliament? Is he aware that during the passing of that Bill his predecessor gave an assurance that there would be clear monitoring, in which Members of Parliament would be involved?

Mr. Fraser: There is careful monitoring. From time to time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my predecessor and I have answered questions on this matter. The hon. Gentleman is asking that a confidential report by those working on the experiment to see whether the difficulties can be successfully ironed out should be made public. As my right hon. Friend and I have already said, that would be wholly counter-productive to trying to make sure that the experiment works.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Mr. Canavan: No. 34.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary question on question 32, despite the time. Does the hon. Gentleman want to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Canavan: No. 34.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go on to that question.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: How long does my hon. and learned Friend think the experiment will continue? When, eventually, will a report be made to us on the results?

Mr. Fraser: The experiment is being conducted, not by the Crown Office, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It has been going on for some time. What is important is that its area of experimentation has been extended. What is most important is that it is now being carried on in Glasgow. Once we know fully what has been found out in Glasgow, I have no doubt that there will be a full statement both to the House and interested members of the public on the success of the experiment.

Criticism of Judges (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House.
The House will recall the exchanges that took place yesterday afternoon on a judment and sentence that had recently been given in a case of rape. On reading those exchanges today, I am satisfied that I needlessly took upon myself the blame for an irregularity that did not in fact occur. There is a firm distinction to be drawn between criticism of the character and conduct of a judge, which is out of order, except on a substantive motion, and of the substance of one of his judgments, which is quite permissible.
I drew that distinction very clearly on 19 July 1977, in a ruling from which I venture to quote as yesterday it had gone from the mind of the House and myself. I said:
the rule is not so restrictive as some hon. Members may think. It is not necessary to have a substantive motion before the House to allow Members to argue that a judge has made a mistake, that he was wrong, and the reasons for those contentions can be given within certain limits, provided that moderate language is used."—[Official Report, 19 July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 1381.]
On the other hand:
Reflections on the judge's character or motives cannot be made except on a motion. No charge of a personal nature can be raised except on a motion. Any suggestion that a judge should be dismissed can be made only on a motion."—[Official Report, 4 December 1973, Vol. 865, c. 1092.]
Both the question raised by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) yesterday and the Prime Minister's reply fell quite clearly within the terms of the earlier part of that ruling.
I have felt bound to make this statement to the House today to ensure that nothing that happened yesterday will tend to inhibit hon. Members from exercising their right to criticism, which they have always enjoyed and which it is in the interests of the House that they should have freedom to enjoy.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: You have been nobbled again.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman who used that offensive expression is behaving in a manner that is unworthy of himself and the House. The House will realise that the only mistake that I made yesterday was to say that I had made a mistake.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I express my appreciation, Mr. Speaker, for the way in which you have exonerated myself and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the terms of my question and her reply, neither of which in my judgment was intended to impugn either the integrity or the conduct of the judge but to draw attention to the general concern about lenient sentences in such cases? As you have raised this issue, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for clarification on one point as I believe that it is of considerable interest to all hon. Members? Is my understanding correct that it is possible for any hon. Member to question a sentence as being either too short or even too long, provided that he does not refer to the judge or question in any way the conduct of that individual?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. If he reads in Hansard what I have said, he will find a clear answer to his question.

Mr. Christopher Price: Thank you very much for that revised ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I accept as totally as I accepted your ruling in the opposite sense yesterday. However, will you confirm that although your ruling that the word "incomprehensible", which is a strong word in relation to a judge, does not stray into the territory that might be considered as reflecting on a judge's motives or ability to carry out his job, nevertheless it is undesirable for planted questions and prepared answers to be made—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That cannot be a point of order for me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting my ruling.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I, too, should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling, but I should like the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) to be conveyed to the Table Office. It has been my experience over some years that it does not matter how one tries to table a question about any judge on any matter, the Table Office will rule it out, whether or not it falls within your ruling as given. I ask that the Table Office should be advised that, provided we do not attack the character of a judge and cast aspersions upon his honesty and integrity, we can pass comment and say that we believe that this six week sentence is far too limited for the crime that has been committed. We should at least be given a chance to raise questions about judges.

Mr. J. Grimond: Quite right.

Mr. Lewis: As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) says, "Quite right." I am sure that neither of us could find one question on a judge that has been accepted for the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael English: You are a quasi-judge, Mr. Speaker, and consider yourself bound by precedent. Until about 17 years ago all the judges in England were bound by precedent but then, as you will recollect, the then Lord Chancellor and all the judges in the House of Lords considered that they should no longer be bound by precedent because it sometimes led them into paths that were currently wrong. I wonder whether you will consult your advisers and consider whether the Speaker—in the abstract, as an office—should follow the same principle that is now being followed by all the judges in the country.

Mr. Speaker: I am always willing to listen with care to the hon. Gentleman, but we must not throw "Erskine May" out of the window—there would be greater trouble. However, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I usually take points of order after applications under Standing Order No. 9.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about public expenditure on the Scotland programme in 1983–84. The total for the Scottish programme, excluding agriculture, was announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement.
I have now made my allocations to programmes and I have completed my consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the rate support grant and housing support grant settlements. The debates on those orders will give hon. Members a full opportunity to discuss the settlements, and I do not want to elaborate on them now. The rate support grant order and report are being laid before the House today. It provides for a total relevant expenditure figure of £3,118 million and aggregate grants of £1,924·25 million. Provision for current expenditure within the total is £2,660 million, £25 million more than the provisional figure that I announced on 28 July. I shall say more about housing in a moment.
My total programme for 1983–84 now stands at £6,380 million; £127 million higher than the plan for 1983–84 set out in Cmnd. 8494, and £309 million more than the resources available for the current year. The figures are essentially on the same basis as the autumn statement. I shall circulate details in the Offical Report.
My programme is in two parts. There is a block of programmes within which I have discretion to allocate resources, the total of which is adjusted by reference to changes in English or English and Welsh programmes; and there are two programmes—agriculture and industry—which stand entirely outside the block.
The provision for the programmes outside the block is virtually unchanged from that announced last year, except for a reduction of £10 million in the provision for the land clearance and building programme of the Scottish Development Agency. There is every sign that the agency will be able to attract private capital to sustain this element of its programme.
In allocating resources to the other programmes, I have kept particularly in mind three priorities: our continuing commitment to law and order and the fight against crime; maintaining growth in the hospital and community health and family practitioner services; and the need to stimulate capital investment wherever possible. Otherwise, the provision that I have made generally allows for the continuation of existing policies.
Accordingly, the provision made for law, order and protective services is £446 million, about 10 per cent. more than the amount provided in the current year. The increase provides for the police service to be manned fully up to authorised establishment levels, and it allows for an increase in the manpower costs of the prison service and for growth in demand for legal aid.
The provision for health and social work is £2,051 million, an increase of 6·9 per cent. over the planned provision for the current year. For the health programme alone the increase is £108 million. Of this, about £80 million is for recurrent expenditure on hospital, community health, welfare milk and centrally managed health services. This should be sufficient to allow for improvement in these services to meet new demands, after pay and price increases have been met, and to permit a

further redistribution of resources to health boards in accordance with the SHARE arrangements. Provision for social work is £314 million, an increase of £25 million—which is 8·6 per cent. overprovision in the current year. This recognises the growing demand for services for the elderly and other vulnerable groups.
The provision of £524 million for transport will ensure, among other things, continued work on major roads, such as the A1, A9, A74, A75 and A94.
In education, after allowance is made for the continuing decline in school rolls and the reduction in the national insurance surcharge, the provision that I have made should allow for the maintenance of planned staffing standards, provided pay settlements in 1983 are at a reasonable level. On the same basis, there should be room for modest expansion in further education places. I have also made provision for more places in the central institutions for advanced studies in the new technologies.
For housing, the provision is £656 million. I have again sought to reduce the general support to local authority housing revenue accounts through housing support grant, so as to make available the largest possible resources for capital expenditure, and I am continuing the housing expenditure limits system with a view to reducing the burden of housing support falling on ratepayers to about £9 million below this year's level. Most authorities will be able to maintain their full capital programme while increasing rents by less than £1 per week: only those who have consistently failed to respond to Government policies in this respect will require larger increases. As a result, I am glad to say that I have been able to provide, after account is taken of expected receipts, for the local authorities, the Housing Corporation and the Scottish Special Housing Association to have capital programmes at or above this year's level. Total gross capital expenditure will be about £540 million.
On capital expenditure generally, about £420 million will be available for local authority capital programmes, apart from housing, also after taking account of expected receipts. This is about £15 million more than the comparable planned figure for the current year. About a further £380 million will be available for the central Government capital programmes, including health, trunk roads and investment by the SDA and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. All in all, this amounts to a gross capital programme of about £1,340 million, the bulk of which will be spent on construction projects.
A feature of capital expenditure is the tendency for provision to be underspent. I have already taken measures to minimise underspending this year: I have removed all limits from spending by housing authorities this year on improvement and repairs grants, and supplementary consents of £17 million were given to local authorities in respect of other services. I hope that these measures will ensure an outturn for 1982–83 that will be well up to the plan, and we shall similarly make every effort in 1983–84 to see that the provision that we have made for capital programmes is fully utilised.

Mr. Bruce Millan: This statement is long and complicated, but unfortunately its overall effect is all too depressingly clear, as I shall demonstrate.
In the first place, is it not a fact that many of the figures quoted in the statement are absolutely meaningless


because they are now given in cash terms and take no account of inflation? Worse, some of the presentation of the figures is deliberately misleading. I shall give one example. I imagine that the Secretary of State hopes that the overall effect of the statement will be a boost to the Scottish economy. For example, the right hon. Gentleman says in his third paragraph that his total programme for 1983–84 will be £127 million higher than the plan for that year, which was set out in the public expenditure White Paper published in March of this year. In fact, that £127 million includes £120 million for local authority spending, which is not included in the local authority guidelines, which the Secretary of State is asking local authorities not to spend, and on which he is threatening to penalise them if they do spend it. If we exclude that £120 million, the real figure for 1983–84 is almost exactly the same—within £7 million—as the figure that was published in March 1982 in the public expenditure White Paper, and will represent a reduction in public expenditure in real terms in 1983–84.
The Secretary of State said that we can debate rate support grant and housing support grant later. We shall look forward to those debates. On rate support grant, will the Secretary of State confirm what he knows is true, that if local authorities met his guidelines for expenditure in 1983–84, they would have to reduce their expenditure in real terms by about 7·9 per cent., compared with their budgets in the current year? Is it not also a fact that the rate of grant for rate support grant next year is being reduced from 64·2 per cent. to 61·5 per cent.? A consequence of those two facts is that if local authorities met the Secretary of State's figures for 1983–84, they would, for example, have to dispense with 6,000 of the teachers who are now employed in Scottish schools.
Surely the background to the housing support grant is that in 1980–81, only three years ago, the total housing support grant in Scotland was £288 million, and that in 1983–84 it will be only £72 million. That is less than a third in cash terms, and if we allow for inflation, the housing support grant for next year will be less than a quarter of the figure for 1980–81, which itself was a reduction on the figures under the Labour Government.
Is it not also a fact that 20 local housing authorities in Scotland will get no grant at all for 1983–84? Those authorities include major housing authorities such as Edinburgh, Dundee, Dunfermline, Falkirk, Dumbarton and Renfrew. Is it not also a fact that the assumed rent increases in Scotland, at an average of about £1·40 per week, are considerably higher than the 85p a week that is being assumed for England and Wales? For some of the major local authorities in Scotland, including Glasgow, for example, the increase to meet the Secretary of State's figures would have to be a 25 per cent. rent increase in 1983–84.
The Secretary of State gave the figure for total housing expenditure in 1983–84, but he was careful not to give the equivalent figure for 1982–83. Will he confirm that total housing expenditure for 1982–83 will be £741 million and for 1983–84 is projected to be £656 million—a reduction of nearly 12 per cent. in cash terms and considerably more in real terms? Therefore, we shall have a major housing crisis in Scotland. That is the background against which we can judge the frantic efforts of the Government to encourage local authorities to spend more in capital

expenditure. No wonder they are making such efforts when there are 46,000 construction workers in Scotland at present on the dole and when building work is desperately needed.
When will the Secretary of State get it into his head that he will not get additional capital expenditure by local authorities unless he meets the revenue consequences of that capital expenditure? If he asks local authorities to reduce their expenditure in 1983–84 by 7·9 per cent. in real terms compared with this year's Budget, he will not get a boost to capital expenditure. Is he not aware that he is imposing even greater penalties on local authority housing by saying that unless they increase their rent levels to figures that he lays down he will cut their capital expenditure? Housing in Scotland has already lost nearly £50 million in capital expenditure in the current year and we shall lose the same again next year. That puts in proper perspective the simulated and artificial concern about housing in Scotland that has been expressed by the Secretary of State and other Ministers.
To sum up, the Government's attempts to curb public expenditure have led to a crisis of confidence in local authorities. They have led to cuts in essential services, particularly in housing, and have added to the disastrous unemployment figures in Scotland and to the slump there. Despite the careful presentation of the figures in today's statement, Government policies are continuing along the road that has already proved disastrous for Scotland.

Mr. Younger: I have a feeling that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) wrote his speech before he had read the statement which I read out. For all that, he made a revealing contribution. Most revealing was his comment that the statement is meaningless because it is couched entirely in cash terms. There speaks somebody who has spent his life in the public sector and has never had to realise the real value of money and where it comes from. We are now talking in cash terms and this is real money. That means real money to the people who provide it—particularly the ratepayers.
We shall have a full opportunity to discuss the rate and housing support grants and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is looking forward to that as much as I am. However, I shall make one or two comments on the points that he has made. He mentioned the £120 million extra which is added on, but unallocated, to local authorities' budgets. That was produced with great difficulty by my Department and my right hon. and hon. Friends in order to help those local authorities which have consistently failed, year upon year, to get anywhere near to the target that we have set them. It was designed to help them to find it less difficult to attain those targets this year.
The right hon. Gentleman merely exposes the background to his thinking when he criticises that as anything other than an attempt to help local authorities. Of course, it is not allocated to services because the objective is to try to reduce expenditure to the level aimed for. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about guidelines were quite inapposite. He should bear in mind, as he found, that guidelines are entirely for the guidance of local authorities. The figures should not mask the fact that this settlement represents an increase of 9 per cent. in cash terms on last year's settlement figures. If those had been met, that would mean, allowing for a 5 per cent. inflation factor—which has been done—a real increase of 4 per cent. in what local authorities could spend. However, as


they were far from achieving those figures last year, this will mean a reduction of 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. on the actual expenditure that they will probably have incurred. That is a consequence of the repeated failure of local authorities, year upon year, to get anywhere near the cash planning figures that were given.
The right hon. Gentleman's record on forecasts should be made clear. Last year he said categorically that he stood by the fact that there would be rate increases of about 25 per cent. The actual turnout was about 12 per cent. Therefore, he was only 100 per cent. wrong, which is not bad for him. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to imply that there will be a £1·40 average rent increase in Scotland. That is rubbish. He knows that the vast majority of Scottish authorities—80 per cent. or 90 per cent.—will need rent increases of less than £1 a week. Those that have been particularly prudent in recent years will probably have even less than that. There are a few authorities which have been irresponsible, year upon year, and they will need higher rent increases. However, thanks to the Conservative Party, there is now an effective rent rebate scheme.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman alleged that we were making frantic efforts to persuade local authorities to spend more. I should have thought that that would have had his support. We are not trying to increase capital spending over what has been provided, but trying to persuade local authorities so to organise themselves that they can spend the money which the Government have, with great difficulty, made available for them to spend. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give his help in encouraging them so to do.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman has not disputed, or shown to be false, a single figure in the questions that I put to him, nor has he answered those questions. Therefore, may I ask him to answer one simple question? Does he expect local authorities to spend £120 million?

Mr. Younger: The £120 million is there to help local authorities achieve their total spending. However, I hope that they will not have to spend that £120 million. I would rather that they did not, as would every ratepayer in Scotland.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we shall not debate this matter today. We shall only have questions on it. There is another statement and an application under Standing Order No. 9 before we reach the emergency debate. Therefore, I hope that questions will be brief and to the point.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is highly unsatisfactory to have such an extremely important, but, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, inevitably highly complex matter such as this dealt with without any warning at all? Does he not agree that it would be much more sensible if hon. Members had 24 hours' notice so that we could have meaningful exchanges on the matter?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given the level of unemployment, it is unsatisfactory that expenditure on social work is only keeping pace with inflation? It will obviously not do that in the health sector, since social work is to be 8·3 per cent. Does he not agree

that if social unrest, which most people agree is related to unemployment, requires an increase of 10 per cent., social deprivation demands and deserves at least comparable treatment?

Mr. Younger: I am not sure that the House would agree with the the hon. Gentleman's first point. It is in response to the wish of the House that Ministers who are responsible for spending money make statements so that hon. Members can have an opportunity to cross-examine them. If a more detailed examination is required, there are Supply days, and so on, for that. However, I would be willing to fall in with any requirement of the House in that matter. I am anxious to give the maximum information to hon. Members to enable them to discuss this as well as they can.
I appreciate that in these times there are mounting demands on social work. On both the health and social work programmes, a small element of real growth is built in. I would wish it to be bigger, but at a time when public expenditure is extremely difficult to find it is very satisfactory that we have managed to find any growth at all and I am glad of that.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members welcome his statement today as a realistic and balanced package? However, will he tell the House how best he can ensure that the increases that he has announced today will be directed to improving services for people rather than merely increasing the costs and size of local administrations?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is on a very good point. Everyone involved in the administration of such matters does his job to the best of his ability. However, on a comparable basis, considerably more employees per head are involved in local authority administration in Scotland than are employed south of the border. Nevertheless, for the sake of the ratepayers, there must be some scope for economies to be made in that sphere.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Secretary of State referred with some satisfaction to the continuation of existing policies, but is he aware that that is the last thing that Scotland needs now? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if it were not for the returns from the Scottish oilfields, the United Kingdom might be obliged to file a petition for bankruptcy? Does he accept that neither he nor the Government have any mandate for applying such policies to Scotland?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has far less of a mandate than we have. He lost practically all his colleagues at the last general election. The vast majority of those who have to pay rates and taxes want their money to be used to better effect, and that is what the statement will help to do.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party has a mandate in Scotland? However, I shall return to one of the numerous points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) raised and which the Secretary of State has not seen fit to respond to. How can the Secretary of State expect local authorities to, as he would say, minimise underspending on capital projects when he will not provide for associated


revenue expenditure? What is the point of building schools, hospitals and so on if the Government will not allow authorities to employ the staff to man them?

Mr. Younger: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that local authorities do not build hospitals. Anyway, that point does not apply. There is a considerable amount of capital expenditure that has no revenue consequences. Where there are revenue consequences, it is up to local authorities to use their finances better. It is not impossible to make savings in order to afford such things. I have had to make considerable savings within my programmes in the Scottish Office to help local authorities.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? Will he draw the attention of Scottish local authorities to the experience south of the border, where, when local authorities have put tasks such as refuse collection out to competitive tenders, costs have fallen and efficiency improved? Will he also consider speeding up the building of the dual carriageway from the central industrial belt of Scotland to Aberdeen, which is the oil capital of Europe?

Mr. Younger: Of course I hope that Scottish local authorities will consider any means of saving ratepayers' money. If one of those options is the contracting out of some services, I hope that they will consider that seriously. We shall press on with the dual carriageway provision as hard as we can, but any constraint is likely to be caused by objections and procedures, rather than by finance. However, we certainly intend to proceed with the project.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Given the advice that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) will he be more specific about his statement's implications for local government manpower figures? How many manual workers' jobs, local authority officers' jobs and jobs in the private sector which directly relate to local authorities will be lost as a result of the statement?

Mr. Younger: I suppose that I would have to add to that calculation the number of jobs that would be gained in the private sector if there were to be a little easing of the rate burden. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should ponder on the only fact that I can give the hon. Gentleman. Scotland apparently employs per thousand of the population about 10 more local officials than are employed in England and Wales. That must be food for thought and there must be some scope for savings there.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Secretary of State again confirm that the statement offers a reduction in real terms in the programme of the fiscal year to come, as opposed to that in the present fiscal year? The right hon. Gentleman speaks of underspending, but will he consider the decisions made in the current year and bear in mind that much of that underspend was due to the fact that the Scottish Office did not invoke the sanction referred to at the end of the statement earlier in the year?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman's latter point is only partly true. The underspending is a function both of that sanction, and of the necessary administrative procedures which perhaps do not show early enough when

an underspend is likely to occur. However, we are doing all we can to identify that earlier so that we can help local authorities not to underspend. The right hon. Gentleman's first point shows the value of expressing the figures in cash terms. By taking an assessment for inflation together with the figures for last year and the coming year, one can work out, according to the inflation factor that is put in—the Government's assessment at present is 5 per cent.—whether there is an increase in real terms. I agree, that on these few figures there does not appear to be an increase, unless inflation falls further than expected. However, it has been doing just that in the past few months.

Sir Hector Monro: After that irrelevant tirade from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), may I compliment my right hon. Friend on the amount of money he has made available in real terms to local authorities, given the present economic troubles? Will he assure me that the rate support grant formula is fair to rural areas—by comparison with urban areas—given the cost of services in country areas?

Mr. Younger: I agree that that is an important factor. We continually try to refine the break-up of the rate support grant to ensure that the rural areas are treated fairly. I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point. I agree with his first point. If we can show that there has been a reduction this year—albeit small—in the amount of public expenditure in the programme, there will be a mighty cheer from every industrialist and ratepayer in Scotland.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given that billions of pounds concerning the whole Public Expenditure Survey Committee strategy is involved in the never-ending commitment to the South Atlantic, will the right hon. Gentleman say whose side he is on? Is he on the side of the Foreign Secretary, who wants a solution, or that of the Prime Minister, who will not hear of it?

Mr. Younger: None of my programme is spent in the South Atlantic.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Despite my right hon. Friend's considerable efforts to curb the extreme excesses of a few local authorities in their expenditure of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money, does he not accept that many Socialist-controlled local authorities still spend much more than they should do? As a result, there is less in the total pool of resources available to all local authorities. Will my right hon. Friend accept that that sometimes has unfair consequences for those local authorities that have a historic track record of showing great prudence with ratepayers' money?

Mr. Younger: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. I greatly regret that when there is a large overspend, as there was again last year, even part of that money—and the Government have sought to recover only a small part—can be recovered only by means of a general abatement, which cannot but be unfair on those local authorities that have tried their best, successfully, to reduce expenditure. I hope that all local authorities will look at the matter together and realise that it is incumbent upon them to work within the context of the strategy of the Government of the day. That has always been accepted by the vast majority of local authorities.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members before we move on. I hope that their questions will be brief.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is a recipe for further rate increases affecting all ratepayers, and for further rent increases that will affect all council house tenants? Why is the Secretary of State politically discriminating against council tenants in areas such as Stirling district, where the Labour-controlled council has deliberately tried a low rent policy to protect tenants from the Government? That council is now faced with blackmailing financial penalties from the Government unless it massively increases the rents. Why will some local authorities such as Falkirk, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth have to face the possibility of no rate support grant at all?

Mr. Younger: Stirling district may be trying to protect those who pay rent, but it may have forgotten that the rent rebate scheme ensures that rent payers do not have to pay a rent that they cannot afford, unless they are well-off rent payers—although I cannot readily think of any in that district. Those who are well-off might be helped by a general policy of low rates and would not be affected by rent rebates.
With regard to general policy on rates increases, it must be remembered that every penny spent by councils is found either from rates or taxes. We have to remember the interests of ratepayers and taxpayers, too.

Mr. George Foulkes: Why are the Government spending more and more money each year on the law and order services to combat crime and less and less on services such as leisure and recreation, which might help to prevent crime? What response will the Secretary of State give to the district councils which have taken on total responsibility for leisure and recreation, account of which has not been taken in the rate support grant allocation? I hope the Secretary of State will take account of that and will give increased allocations to the district councils for leisure and recreation facilities.

Mr. Younger: Account has been taken of that in the rate support grant settlement. I hope the transfer will work out to be satisfactory in that respect. With regard to the balance between law and order and leisure and recreation, we would like to do more for all of these, but, if one has to choose, many people are anxious about law and order and would say that they would rather have a decent standard of law and order than extra leisure and recreation facilities.

Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Secretary of State met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities did it explain that authorities failed to meet his targets because those targets were so unrealistic in the first place? Was the Secretary of State asked whether, in asking for lower manning levels in local government, he had

1982–83 White Paper (Cmnd. 8494) with Budget changes*
1983–84 White Paper (Cmnd. 8494) with Budget changes*
1983–84 Revised†


Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry ‡
155
167
166


Industry, energy, trade and employment
165
169
159


Tourism
8
8
8

given an estimate for the amount of money taxpayers will have to pay to meet the cost of having those people on the dole? When the Secretary of State discussed rent levels with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, did he draw to its attention the fact that rent arrears have doubled over the past two years in the districts and islands of Scotland, which is a clear indication of the law of diminishing returns for the Government's rent policy?

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Local authorities in Scotland are finding it difficult to hit anywhere near the target expenditure that we are laying out; they have, year on year, consistently failed to come anywhere near the expenditure targets laid by Government. Of course it makes it progressively more difficult each year to hit the targets if they do that. Each year I have tried my best to be helpful. This year, again, I have found extra money even by cutting my own programmes to make it easier for local authorities.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about employment, but there is no future for anyone in either doing or being paid for work that is not strictly necessary. If it is not strictly necessary local authorities should seriously consider, in their ratepayers' interests, getting their staffs down to a reasonable level.
With regard to the increase in rent arrears, we come back again to the undoubted fact that anyone who has genuine difficulty in paying his rates is well covered by the rent rebate scheme, which, incidentally, was violently opposed by Labour Members when we introduced it.

Mr. Millan: That is untrue. We did not oppose it.

Mr. Younger: The Opposition voted firmly against it. I was present as the Minister involved. The scheme fully covers anyone who finds genuine difficulty in paying his rent. That is the answer. If there are increases in rent arrears, reasonably well-off people must be refusing to pay their rent. That is a different matter.

Mr. Ernie Ross: With his announcement to withdraw housing support grant from Dundee, the Secretary of State must be aware that he has left Dundee with only two choices if it is to qualify for its full capital allocation. There must be either a substantial rates increase or a massive rent increase of £1·60 for council house tenants. Which of those options does the Secretary of State advise the council to pursue?

Mr. Younger: I would suggest that the district council bears in mind that in paying for its housing revenue account it has sources of income which begin with the rent payer and go on to the ratepayer and the taxpayer. That authority has consistently put too heavy a burden on the ratepayer and the taxpayer and not enough burden on the rent payer, who enjoys the benefit of the house itself, protected by rent rebates. That would be the correct policy to pursue.

Following are the details:

1982–83 White Paper (Cmnd. 8494) with Budget changes*
1983–84 White Paper (Cmnd. 8494) with Budget changes*
1983–84 Revised†


Transport
499
528
S24


Housing
741
650
656


Other environmental services
626
644
636


Law, order and protective services
403
435
446≑


Education and science, arts and libraries
1,475
1,518
1,514


Health and social work
1.919¶
2,050
2,051


Other public services
79
83
99●


Common services
1
1
1


Local authority current expenditure not allocated
—
—
120



6,071
6,253
6,380


* Including other minor changes of classification and allocation. Contributions to the external financing limit of the nationalised industries and adjustments for the NI surcharge shown separately in the autumn statement have been allocated to programmes.


† Some figures may be subject to detailed technical amendment before publication of the 1983 Public Expenditure White Paper.


‡ Treated on GB basis in autumn statement.


≑ Includes £6m transferred from PSA (other columns not adjusted).


¶ Includes additional provision for NHS pay settlements announced on 1 July and 16 November.


● Includes £16m transferred from PSA (other columns not adjusted).

Note:

Owing to rounding individual figures may not sum to the totals.

Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Buchanan-Smith.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to Scottish Question Time, I know that you had trouble earlier with your geography of Scotland. You may

know, Mr. Speaker, that Hillhead is in Scotland. I wonder why you did not think it appropriate to call the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) during Scottish Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I had better not comment on that.

Agriculture Council

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 13 and 14 December in Brussels, at which I represented the United Kingdom.
The Council agreed to extend to the end of 1983 the arrangements for controlling imports of live cattle and pigs into Great Britain to protect our livestock against foot and mouth disease and swine vesicular disease. The special arrangements which apply to imports of live animals and meat into Northern Ireland have also been extended for a further year. During next year, the Council will discuss the introduction of rules for trade within the Community in live animals and fresh meat. We shall, of course, ensure that, when such rules are adopted, the special status of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is fully protected.
The council also discussed new provisions which would bring up to date the public health requirements for trade within the Community and with third countries in fresh meat. No decision was reached and the Council will consider this further at its meetings early next year.
Agreement was reached on the 1983 arrangements for the importation of beef for processing. Next year's arrangements, including the quantity of 60,000 tonnes at reduced rate of levy, are the same as those for this year. These supplies are important to our processing industry and this means that imports can take place from the beginning of January.
As the House knows, in October the Council decided the arrangements for imports of New Zealand butter in 1983. However, the French and Irish Governments indicated again that they are not prepared to adopt the necessary implementing regulation until the Commission has authorised exports to Russia. I made it clear that there is no possible justification for the objections of these two delegations, which are an abuse of the Council procedures. There will be further discussion at the management committee before Christmas.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The Opposition welcome the decision at last to continue for another year the existing animal import controls. I only wish that the Government had listened to us more fully in the debate last week. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) will be pleased that the Minister listened to what he had to say.
Will the Minister accept that what is really needed is a permanent recognition of the special requirements both of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland? We cannot be satisfied with anything less.
I have anxieties about imported beef. Unnecessary and unfair restrictions are still being placed not just on third countries but on Third world countries. The figure for Botswana for the first nine months is 8,000 tonnes of imported beef. There must now be a gap because of what has happened with Argentina. Is it not possible that the gap could be filled by Botswana? Should we not examine that possibility to see what further imports of beef at that rate could be made?
The statement referred to butter. The Minister will remember that we now know that over the past few years, despite the decision of the Council of Ministers, the EC has continued to export subsidised butter. When the Minister says that there will be further discussion at the management committee before Christmas, does this mean that this matter will pass outside our control so that, as has happened over the past few years, the wishes of the Council of Ministers are to be flouted? We should like assurances on that.
Will the Minister give a further assurance that, if the management committee discusses this further, it will not discuss our guaranteed arrangements for the import of butter from New Zealand?
On a more festive note, the House would welcome an assurance that, despite what the management committee may say, the subsidised Christmas butter for the United Kingdom will continue. I should like guarantees on all those points.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With regard to foot and mouth disease, I welcome the support from the Opposition. We have succeeded in the Council of Ministers in achieving the declared objective that my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made clear to the House. I am glad that we have succeeded in that and, of course, we had the support of the Republic of Ireland and the strong support of Denmark in doing so. I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Gentleman has given.
Beef is important to our processing industries. The arrangements fulfil the agreement under the multilateral trade negotiations which were carried out a number of years ago. As I understand it, arrangements have been welcomed by the countries involved.
The French Minister tried to make a link between the exports of butter to Russia and the continuation of supplies from New Zealand. The French failed in that attempt. The Presidency, the Commission and other delegations made it clear that they believed that to try to make that sort of link was unreasonable and unjustified. In October the Council had agreed, without any condition, that the import of butter from New Zealand should continue. We shall continue to press for that, and I am confident that we shall proceed with supplies continuing in 1983.

Mr. Buchan: What will the management committee be discussing if these guarantees are finalised?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The management committee has to deal with details such as implementing regulations and export refunds. A formal meeting of the management committee is due to take place before Christmas.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ulster farming industry w ill be relieved at the breathing space that the Minister, with the assistance of the House, has obtained, and that it relies on the Government to use that breathing space to make an agreement that will permanently secure a special standard of animal health in Northern Ireland, which is so beneficial both to the Province and to the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the support which he gave in the House last week. We have a special status, and within the United Kingdom Northern Ireland has an even more special status. We have made an entry in the


Council minutes to the effect that this status and the longer-term conditions must be recognised before an agreement is reached.

Sir Peter Mills: I congratulate the Minister on the negotiations. Will he stand firm on the exports of butter to Russia, which are entirely wrong in my view? Any advantages should accrue within the Community, especially for pensioners, hospitals and the Armed Services. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not wise to allow the importation of live animals into this country, especially in the south-west where there are enormous herds of beef and cattle? It would be disastrous if foot and mouth disease were allowed to enter the country.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The United Kingdom has made clear its opposition to the exports of butter to Russia and has voted against it in the management committee. We shall continue to take this position. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. We recognise the danger to our livestock of foot and mouth disease, and that is why we have argued in the way that I have outlined. Until we arrive at satisfactory long-term arrangements, the arrangements that we thrashed out in 1976 will continue. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has so rightly said.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I welcome the action that has been taken on the importation of live cattle. I am sure that the Minister will agree that foot and mouth disease and swine disease are extremely important issues. Can he give an assurance to our livestock producers that he is still in favour of the eradication system and does not support the vaccinating that has been suggested by our European counterparts? Will he advise the House where the 60,000 tonnes of processing beef is coming from? From which part of the world will it come? Finally, for how long does he think we shall sell our butter surpluses to the Russians?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about foot and mouth disease. We believe that our slaughter policy is the right one. It has proved to be successful in the past. We believe that the United Kingdom and two other countries in the Community have the highest health standards and we hope that others will come up to our standards.
One of the countries most involved in the importation of beef into the United Kingdom is Australia. Half our beef imports come under one system of levy and United Kingdom processors take about 40 per cent. of what is available under it. This is an advantage to Commonwealth countries and of especial advantage to our processors.
As I have said, we have made it plain that we believe it wrong to link exports of butter to Russia to the continuation of supplies from New Zealand. Such exports are wrong in any event.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I appreciate the Minister's assurance about New Zealand butter, but is he aware of the problems that New Zealand faces due to the unloading of surplus EC stocks, to which Britain has made no contribution, on the world market? Does he recognise that the unloading of these surpluses has led to New Zealand facing difficulties in selling its butter on the

world market? Will he ensure that the Common Market cannot in future make it so difficult for New Zealand to sell its butter on the world market and that there will be no effect on the quota that the Common Market agrees to supply to our country, bearing in mind that it is a Commonwealth country?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Over recent years there has been good co-operation between the Community and New Zealand in respect of dairy products on the world market. The Commission made it clear that New Zealand butter should continue to have access to the Community to maintain the good relationship that exists in other world markets. There is support from the Commission and the Council and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Given the strong revulsion felt by the European public about the provision of subsidised butter to the Russians whereby they can release other resources for building up their massive armed forces, is it possible that the handling of this matter could be withdrawn from the competence of the management committee and vested in the European Council? If this is the case, will my hon. Friend seek to move in that direction so that we can veto this nonsense in future?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Under the provisions of the treaty, these matters are subject to management committee procedure. I do not see prospects of that being changed. However, among others in the Community, Britain is not alone in being concerned about these exports to Russia. Other Governments share our concern and we shall continue to work with them to try to achieve our objectives.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those who have been rising in their places and seeking to catch my eye.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise the international multilateral obligations to which the Minister has spoken that apply to the importation of beef for processing and the needs of the processing industry. Might it not have been better this year, especially when our domestic meat producers are under considerable pressure, to have sought to supply a larger part of the processing industry's needs from our own resources?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, because our processors want meat that has a high lean content for the processed meat that they are producing, which is not available from within the Community. Imports are necessary in recognition of the needs of our industry and the needs of our consumers. If our processors are not supplied, consumers are likely to be supplied from sources outside the Community. Therefore, the continued access to this meat is in the interests of British processors and British consumers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that these statements tend to follow a familiar boring pattern? The Minister presents a statement that is an anouncement of defeat and failure, near-defeat or a referral to a committee and he tries to wrap it up as a partial victory. Is it not a fact that we have reached a stage when


the catalogue of disasters from the Common Market should be brought to an end? We have heard of foot and mouth disease and Dutch chrysanthemum disease. The list goes on and on. Is it not time that we got out of this mess?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am quite sure that my statement and the subsequent questions and answers are no more boring than the hon. Gentleman's interventions. I think that our proceedings this afternoon have proved that. If the hon. Gentleman took a slightly wider interest in Britain and went into the countryside now and again and spoke—

Mr. Skinner: I do.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: —to those who get their livelihood from farms— [Interruption.] If he spoke to those who work on farms and recognised—

Mr. Skinner: I have farms in my constituency.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not fight a duel. We are all entitled to hear the argument from both sides of the House. I call the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I had not quite finished answering the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Speaker: The Minister was not answering, he was entering into an argument.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Member for Bolsover went out and spoke to those who earn their living from the livestock industry, he would welcome what has been achieved on foot and mouth, which is a victory.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the report today that European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to refuse to refund over £400 million of the oversubscription to the Common Market, will the Department seriously examine the way that CAP is being operated?
Has the hon. Gentleman seen the article in The Sunday Times magazine last Sunday, which showed mountains of

tomatoes, peaches and cauliflowers being destroyed in this country and in Europe? People cannot afford to buy them because of the high price policy. Starving millions could do with the food but because of the crazy agricultural policy cannot benefit from it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, under this Government, the share that the United Kingdom has obtained from the agricultural budget of the Community has doubled.
We deprecate the unnecessary destruction of food, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the amount of food that has been made available, often at reduced prices, to suppliers and consumers in the Community.

Mr. Eric Deakins: With regard to New Zealand butter, can the Minister assure the House that the October decision will be implemented? With regard to exports to the Soviet Union, will the Minister confirm that the Council has no influence or control, direct or indirect, over the operations of the management committee? If that is the case, is the Minister prepared to sit back, wring his hands and let the management committee, once more, under the pressure of blackmail from France and Eire, cock a snook at the Council and resume later this month sales of subsidised butter to the Soviet Union?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the system under which we operate is the same system under which the Government of which he was a member operated. Perhaps if he had taken an interest in agricultural matters then, he would not have put that question and showed such ignorance.
With regard to New Zealand butter, the decision will be implemented. I make it clear that there are ample supplies of New Zealand butter available, which is to the benefit of the British housewife.

Gas Safety

Mr. Frank Dobson ': I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Secretary of State for Energy to carry out his statutory duties under the Gas Safety Regulations 1972.
On 6 October 1981 there was a gas explosion in a flat in my constituency. As a result of that explosion, one of my constituents was maimed and disfigured for life. Before the end of the month, the gas board submitted a technical report to the gas standards branch of the Department of Energy.
The Department of Energy and the Director of Public Prosecutions took until October this year before deciding to prosecute the private contractors concerned on four charges under the gas safety regulations. The case was heard at Clerkenwell magistrates court either yesterday or the day before.
The prosecution was ruled invalid and the DPP was ordered to pay the costs of all the parties concerned because counsel for the contractors successfully argued not that they had not caused the explosion, but that the summons was invalid because it was signed by a civil servant and not, as it should have been, by the Secretary of State for Energy. After 14 months of slothful delay on the part of the Department of Energy and the DPP, this is nothing short of a fiasco.
It is self-evident that the matter that I have raised is specific. It is important because the gas standards branch is responsible for the safety of gas installations, not only in my constituency but throughout the nation.
The matter is urgent because the catalogue of failure that I have described shows that the Secretary of State and the DPP appear to be no longer fit to carry out their duties. In these circumstances, they should both come to the House to explain what they have done. If they cannot convince the House that they can maintain gas safety standards as they should, they should resign.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Secretary of State for Energy to carry out his statutory duties under the Gas Safety Regulations 1972.
The House will have listened with deep concern, as I did, to what the hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, it has instructed me to take into account the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman with sympathy, but I must rule that his application does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Liberal and Social Democratic Parties

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, after the Falkland Islands statement, I raised a question with you about the position of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party in the House. In reply to my point of order, you said:
I did exactly the same in the last Parliament when there was an understanding between the Liberal Party and the Government of the day."—[Official Report, 14 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 139.]
I humbly suggest that you reconsider that statement, Sir, because during the 18 months from March 1977 to October 1978 there have been 15 by-elections and in all but one of those the Liberal Party put up a candidate against the official Labour Party candidate. Since the formation of the alliance between the Liberal Party and the SDP not once has there been both a Liberal Party candidate and an SDP candidate in the field. Therefore, I suggest that this makes the position different from the previous circumstances.
What is more, during the Liberal Party conference the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was quoted in The Times as saying that there would be "closer co-operation" between the two parties:
Within the constraints of the Parliamentary rules and procedures we intend to make considerable progress on that, starting with the new Session.
When asked why the two parties did not come together completely and have one leader, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The rules and procedures of the Commons might operate against the parties if they went too quickly into the formation of one parliamentary group.
It seems to me that the two parties are attempting to manipulate the rules of the House for their own benefit and electoral advantage. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider this matter carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has advanced his point of order. I can only tell the House that one of my major responsibilities is to have regard to the minority interests of the House. By and large, the big parties are able to look after themselves, and they do. I am not suggesting that they would dream of trying to use the rules of the House in their favour. I realise that such a thing would be unexpected. I intend to continue to recognise the two parties in the House as they proclaim themselves to be.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business), the Motion relating to Immigration may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Two o'clock.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. John Stokes: Before the House considers the motion, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he considers it right that the debate under Standing Order No. 9, which many believe is largely a public relations exercise, should take place before an important debate on the relaxation of the immigration rules, which will affect primary immigration into this country?
Furthermore, if the immigration debate is taken late into the night, it will not be reported in the media. There is also a danger that a number of hon. Members, including perhaps some Opposition Members, may have gone home to bed before the vote is taken.

Hon. Members: No.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It is not a fair representation of what we are about to debate to claim that possibly it is a public relations exercise. This is a serious issue. A debate under Standing Order No. 9 was sought and granted—I am sure that judgment is universally accepted throughout the Chamber—and the only matter arising is how we should adjust today's business.
The motion before the House takes account of that emergency debate and ensures that the same timing will be available to debate on the immigration regulations as would have been the case had the application under Standing Order No. 9 not been granted. In the circumstances, this is about as good a judgment as one could make on how we should proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Video Cassettes (Prohibition of Rental to Children and Young Persons)

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the rental of video cassettes of adult category to children and young persons.
The obscenity law in Britain has clearly failed to keep abreast of developments in porno-electronics. Before a ruling by the Court of Appeal in 1981, following a reference by the Attorney-General, a video cassette was not an article within the meaning of the Obscene Publications Act. Before a case heard at Willesden magistrates' court in September this year there had been no action before the courts with regard to gratuitous violence on video cassettes.
Thus, with the video revolution expanding at an exponential rate, and with the value of imported video machines from Japan into the United Kingdom exceeding the value of imported cars from that country, the law in Britain today allows the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 when reference to pornographic video material is made. The law also extends his province to include video cassettes portraying cruelty and extreme violence.
What is the practical meaning of the present legal position? To date, all cases involving video cassettes that have been subject to legal proceedings have taken place in local magistrates' courts. The proceedings are civil rather than criminal, and the worst that can happen to the defendant is that he loses what was seized from him. There is no question of his being fined or imprisoned in addition. The consequence is that police forces throughout the country are faced with severe operational difficulties. Premises are raided and obscene cassettes removed, but as soon as the police officers have left the premises the cassettes are replaced on the shelves.
I have been afforded the opportunity to view examples of the obscene cassettes, but it is not my intention to name their titles or to describe in detail the distasteful fricassee of pornography, rape and murder that they portray. I am sure that if all hon. Members took the opportunity to view this material they would agree that the time is ripe for something to be done about this slur on British life today.
A young person or a child is today at perfect liberty to hire obscene cassettes from retail shops in our high streets, to return to their homes and clandestinely to view the material on a video machine. The information that I have collected from within and without the constituency of Gower has convinced me that this practice is both widespread and growing.
It is appropriate today that the House should focus attention on the heavy responsibility carried by any parent who permits a video machine in the home. It is a potentially dangerous weapon that may be used to attack the emotions of our children and young people.
Video is a medium designed for private exhibition, and that medium can—in intimate conditions that lack the distancing effects of public cinema screening—create the glorification of sexual violence. Yet a censored film which for public exhibition in a cinema carries an X certificate may be hired on video cassette in an unabridged form by a child. Children and young persons must be protected.
For television viewing, the IBA code on broadcasting underlines the fact that
Scenes which may unsettle young children need special care. Insecurity is less tolerable for a child—particularly an emotionally unstable child—than it is for a mature adult. Research evidence shows that the socially or emotionally insecure individual, particularly if adolescent, is specially vulnerable. A civilised society pays special attention to its weaker members.
The Bill will offer an element of protection to children and young persons where no protection exists at present.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth Wardell, Dr. Roger Thomas, Mr. Tim Sainsbury, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. Ray Powell.

VIDEO CASSETTES (PROHIBITION OF RENTAL TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS)

Mr. Gareth Wardell accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the rental of video cassettes of adult category to children and young persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 18 February and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

NATO Council (Ministerial Meeting)

Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Tuesday 14 December under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
The recent ministerial meeting of the NATO Council.
This debate takes place at a critical moment for the Alliance, on which we depend for our security and which commands overwhelming support among the British people. It is also a critical moment for world peace. The fears of the rest of the world were reflected in the enormous majority at the recent United Nations Assembly for a freeze on the further development of nuclear weapons.
The Alliance is under exceptional strain in two respects. First, confidence between the United States and West European Governments is weaker than I can ever remember it. Secondly, public anxiety on both sides of the Atlantic about the Alliance's excessive dependence on nuclear weapons is greater than ever before. That has been reflected in demonstrations on both sides of the Atlantic.
The anxiety about the Alliance's excessive dependence on nuclear weapons has been echoed by some of the most distinguished military men with direct personal knowledge of the problem. In Britain, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Mountbatten, who served with me for a while in the Ministry of Defence and was Chief of Defence Staff for six years, said that the belief that nuclear weapons could be used in field warfare without triggering an all-out nuclear exchange leading to the final holocaust was more and more incredible. One of his successors, Admiral Hill-Norton, said he knew no informed observer who believed that war with nuclear weapons was credible. His successor as Chief of Defence Staff, Field Marshal Lord Carver, observed that
no sensible, responsible military person
believed that a war could be fought in Europe in which nuclear weapons were used while avoiding a strategic nuclear exchange.
Those men are not Soviet agents. Nor are they dupes of Soviet propaganda. They were reflecting the anxiety that is widespread among people who have direct knowledge of warfare and intimate knowledge of nuclear weapons. Those anxieties were in some ways even more relevantly expressed recently in the words of General Rogers, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. He said that NATO had mortgaged its defence to the nuclear response.
Those worries, which I believe have grown recently within the military community, have been much increased by suggestions from senior representatives of the American Administration that they contemplate the prospect of a nuclear war which is limited to the European Continent. Worries have also grown because of the revelation a few months ago that the American Administration were preparing a five-year plan for the United States to fight and win a protracted nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
All that worry, which is natural and not the product of enemy propaganda, has inevitably been heightened by a series of leaks—mainly in the American press—of which the report of the United States' intention to move one of its bases from Germany to Britain is only the latest


example. That proposal may be sensible, but the shifting and evasive handling of that press leak by all the Governments concerned, including the British Government, was calculated to arouse maximum alarm and suspicion on both sides of the Atlantic. That cannot be denied. Yet we now hear that both the British and American Governments have known of that proposal for several months.
I hope that when the Foreign Secretary replies to the debate he will tell us precisely what is the nature of that proposal. We were told first that there was no such proposal. We were then told that it was a proposal to set up a base here if the base in Germany became inoperable during a war. Now we are told that a base will be set up and made use of in peace time. I hope that the Foreign Secretary can at least clear up those uncertainties.
The report illustrates the fact that whatever impressions the phrase "forward defence strategy" is intended to convey, NATO rightly recognises that a major conflict in Europe is bound to lead to Soviet military action deep inside the territory of West Germany. That knowledge and recognition strengthens the case for maximising NATO's conventional capability by organising the defence of NATO territory in depth.
I understand that the forward strategy has not so far led to the German Government providing the forward facilities that are needed to maintain their troops where they would be required. However, such a change in the forward strategy would help to rid NATO of the commitment to the early use of nuclear weapons. All the military experts of the greatest authority to whom I have referred would support such action, whether it was taken by following recommendations of the kind that General Rogers is said to have made to the NATO council the other day, or by adopting the Swedish Government's proposal to have a 200-mile band on both sides of the Iron Curtain in which no nuclear weapons would be held.
There is widespread recognition of the unnecessary danger for the Alliance and world peace when two-thirds of NATO's weapons are artillery shells and free-fall bombs that are delivered by aircraft, the only purpose of which is to use them early in a tactical battle.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to tell us something about how the NATO Council responded to the proposals made by General Rogers for a change in strategy that would make the Alliance less dependent upon nuclear weapons. The press reports that came out of the NATO Council were extremely confusing and ambiguous. The subject is of immense importance to all of us and it is of legitimate interest to the House.
If the Alliance could rid itself of dependence on the early use of nuclear weapons, it might be able to move quickly to circumstances in which it was not required to initiate the use of nuclear weapons. As the House will know, a pledge on "no first use" of nuclear weapons has recently been recommended by leading American authorities, such as Mr. Robert McNamara and Mr. McGeorge Bundy who were Defence Secretary and National Security Adviser respectively in the Kennedy Administration. Their views also cannot be held as being determined by over-tenderness to the Soviet Union or to the organised peace movement.
I shall now deal with the most urgent issue, the one which, above all, prompted me to ask for your indulgence for this debate, Mr. Speaker. How will the United States and NATO handle negotiations for nuclear disarmament

in Europe in the next 12 months? The so-called two-track decision was taken by NATO Governments at the end of 1979 when it was generally assumed that SALT II, which had already been negotiated, would be ratified. As the House knows, it was not ratified under the Carter Administration and the Reagan Administration fought an election on the basis that it would not ratify it either. Nevertheless, until now, both the Soviet and the American Governments have observed its provisions.
It is widely believed—I think legitimately—that President Reagan's recent proposal to deploy the MX missile in the dense pack formation would violate not only SALT II, but SALT I. That view is widely held, although Mr. Weinberger, the American Defence Secretary, is tempted to argue to the contrary by a somewhat fanciful interpretation of the treaty. The House will have been glad to see that this proposal was abandoned by the American Government. Congress has voted some funds for the MX programme on condition that it is first able to approve some other method of basing the missile. I see that Mr. Tip O'Neill, the leading Member of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, where it has a majority, says he does not think that it will ever be revived.
It was agreed that negotiations should take place simultaneously with the preparation of cruise and Pershing missiles for deployment if disarmament negotiations had failed to reach agreement by the end of 1983, yet for a long time after President Reagan was elected there were no negotiations whatever. Hon. Members on both sides were delighted when he finally agreed to negotiate on the basis of the so-called zero option, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and myself pressed strongly on President Brezhnev when we met him just over a year ago.
We had to admit that it was never likely that the Soviet Union would actually accept the zero option. That was recognised by Mr. Luns, the Secretary General of NATO, when he said that the zero option was the ideal solution, but not the only one. I see that President Mitterrand suggested that it might be possible to reach agreement somewhere between the original Soviet position and the zero option. I am glad that our own Defence Secretary has said recently that other proposals should be examined.
It appears that other proposals have at last been made by the Soviet Government, although, because of our reliance on a press leak in the New York Times, certainly no one on the Opposition Benches knows precisely what those proposals imply. I hope that now that the matter has moved into the public domain the Foreign Secretary will be able to tell us something about them. I understand that they were not formal proposals. It is, however, normal in difficult negotiations of this nature to discuss proposals informally before tabling them formally. If we are to believe the New York Times report, the latest Soviet proposals imply a cut of a half in the SS20 force targeted against Europe, provided that there is no deployment at all of cruise or Pershing.
I do not believe that the proposal in itself is one that the West would be wise to accept. I believe, however, that it creates a basis for negotiation which we must immediately follow up. I welcome the news in the British press yesterday that the Foreign Office view, conveyed by the subterranean channels through which the Foreign Office communicates its attitudes—perhaps for fear that the Prime Minister will find out what they are—is that the Soviet proposal needs clarification across the negotiating


table. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will strongly agree with that approach. I see that the Danish Government formally expressed that view through the Prime Minister during a visit to Washington on Tuesday.

Mr. Alan Clark: rose—

Mr. Healey: With respect, I should like to proceed a little further with my speech. President Reagan, apparently, according to the report, rejected that offer out of hand. It was regarded as of little interest by Mr. Shultz in a statement yesterday, although, knowing Mr. Shultz's extremely able way of conducting his relations with the Head of this Government, we can assume, I think, that because he did not rule out some intermediate position, he will do his best to secure the President's agreement to negotiate.
What concerned me was the reason given by President Reagan, which was that the Russians would be left with a monopoly of land-based missiles in Europe. Of course it would. The Russians have had a monopoly for 20 years. It did not disturb the West until very recently. The Americans withdrew their Thor and Jupiter land-based missiles from Europe at the beginning of 1963. By 1970 the Soviet Union had deployed 650 SS4 and SS5 nuclear missiles. NATO did not feel it necessary to respond in kind. There was a good reason. Over this period the Alliance had built up an enormous preponderance in submarine-based missiles for use in the European theatre. Submarine-based missiles are far less vulnerable and do not provide targets that put civilian populations at risk.
We move into a difficult area in trying to allocate different types of weapon to different types of function. The categorisation made by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in its recent publication, "Military Balance 1982–83", gives as good a distribution of the weapons as is possible. It points out, in relation to submarine—based missiles for use in the European theatre, that the Soviet Union at the moment has 26 serviceable warheads for delivery from submarines. The United Kingdom has 29 and France has 36. It has become a little disingenuous to continue arguing that negotiations in this area can proceed with the Soviet Union without taking account of the British and French nuclear forces. I know that this view is widely held in the United States.

Mr. Alan Clark: No one who has followed the right hon. Gentleman's career through the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury can any longer feign surprise at his inconsistencies. Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of an Administration who, however informally, agreed to the deployment of cruise? Is it not the case also that, at the time that this was put before the appropriate Cabinet Committee in that Administration, the number of SS20s deployed in Europe was no larger than it would be under the present Soviet offer of reducing it by half, and the very purpose of the deployment, which the right hon. Gentleman agreed, to defend us against would be vitiated?

Mr. Healey: No one who has attended our debates will be surprised that the hon. Gentleman has no sense of history and no political memory. I remind him that the decision by NATO Governments for twin-track deployment and negotiation at the same time was taken in

December 1979 when this country had already been suffering for six months under the Tory Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not interrupt again, especially with a slightly silly preamble, when he has shown himself to be so vulnerable.
I wish to proceed from this passage of arms to the problems of disarmament. The British and French forces are each as powerful as the submarine-based Soviet forces allocated for the European theatre. I know that there can be arguments, but that is the view of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. More important still, the United States has allocated 400 warheads in its Poseidon and Trident missiles for targeting by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe against targets of concern to NATO. By this calculation, there is an enormous preponderance of submarine-based missiles on the NATO side, just as there is a monopoly of land-based missiles on the Soviet side.
Have said that, however, it is still true that if one calculates military strength in terms of deliverable warheads the Russians have a substantial advantage in the European theatre, purely because they have deployed the SS20. Those who recognise that will deplore even more the fact that we did not take advantage of offers by the Soviet Union to cease deploying its SS20 missiles in 1979, when very few had yet been deployed, provided that the West did not go ahead with preparations for the cruise missile and Pershing deployment. That is water over the dam. The Soviet Union now has a significant but not decisive overall preponderance of weapons for use in the European theatre. The Soviet proposal leaked the other day would reduce that preponderance significantly, but not, in my view, sufficiently.
Rather than adopt the Soviet proposal, I should much prefer a proposal which I have supported at the Western European Union and in the British press. The proposal was put forward by the American committee on national security, headed by Mr. Paul Warlike, with whom I worked 20 years ago when he was Clark Clifford's deputy secretary for defence, and who himself negotiated SALT II.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the SS20 and the timing of the Western European attitude to the threat. He informed the House that he has a sense of history. Does he agree that in 1976 or 1977—he will be able to confirm the date—his friend ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt first made the bid from Western Europe for SS20s to be countered by cruise missiles and that that request was supported both by the right hon. Gentleman and by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the then Prime Minister?

Mr. Healey: The matter was not discussed in NATO circles, and no decision was taken, until the end of 1979—[Interruption.] That is true. The decision was taken at the NATO Council meeting in December 1979, when the present Government had been in power for six months.
However, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has raised an important point. The American Government had no intention whatever of responding to the deployment of the SS20 by deploying more medium-range land-based missiles in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. The American decision was taken in response to pressure from European Governments. I


believe that that pressure was mistaken, and I said so three years ago. I said so at a meeting in the United States in the autumn of 1979, just before the decision was finally taken.
We have an opportunity to try to prevent the arms race from moving into a new and touch more dangerous cycle. As I have said in the House on several occasions, it is not possible to detect by what the Russians call national means whether the cruise missile is carrying nuclear or conventional warheads, and it may be very diffiult to detect its position at all. As a disarmament agreement depends upon the ability to verify the deployment of weapons, a move by the West into large-scale dependence on land-based cruise missiles could make the future disarmament negotiations much more difficult. So, too, for different but none the less relevant technical reasons, would deployment of the MX type of missile.
I think that we all believe that now that the Russians are finally moving we should take advantage of the shift in their position and press on with the negotiations as fast as possible to see if we can find, as President Mitterrand suggested, a position on which agreement can be based somewhere between the Russian one and the zero option.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: No, I shall not give way again.
I believe that something on the lines of the Warnke proposals would meet the bill. One factor that has been too little discussed in this regard is that, so far as one can tell from the press reports, the new initiative by the Soviet Union was taken almost within days of Mr. Andropov becoming the new leader of the Soviet Government.
There have been signs of movement in Soviet policy in other areas. There has been the halting movement towards greater liberalisation in Poland. I know that it is not enough to satisfy most of us in the House, but it is none the less real and genuine movement in the right direction. There are also signs of a search for some agreement about Afghanistan which would enable Soviet troops to be withdrawn. President Zia has referred to that on several occasions.
Most fascinating of all, perhaps, is the fact that Mr. Chester Crocker found it possible to go to the Soviet Union this week and to discuss with the Soviet Government the presence of Cuban troops in Angola. It would have been difficult to imagine that happening a month or two ago.
Nevertheless, one must accept that there are forces within the Soviet Union, particularly in the military establishment, that are bound to resist any further movement. I read with mounting dismay the remarks of General Lebedev as reported by Novosti. It was certainly a bit thick to say that if the Americans deployed MX or cruise and Pershing, the Russians would launch on warning. Western Europe has lived for many years under the threat of a six-minute attack from Soviet missiles but has never contemplated such a dangerous and foolish approach.
I believe, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree with me, that the British Government must throw their weight behind those in both Moscow and Washington who would far rather have an agreement on arms control than open a new and more dangerous cycle of the arms race that will make arms control more difficult. I was interested to read in the New York Times that among the doves in this respect is Mr. Paul Nitze, whom I have

known for 30 years and who is certainly among the most sceptical, hard-headed and experienced negotiators that America could produce in this area.
What disturbs me—I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to give us some reassurance—is the attitude, not of the Foreign Office, but of the Prime Minister on these matters. I do not wish to make too much of this. We are familiar with the exuberance with which the Prime Minister approaches Question Time in the House. Nevertheless, I am appalled at the stony and callous indifference that she seems to show to the idea of arms control and her tendency to provoke jingoistic hysteria on issues that demand rational and objective thought.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary can assure us that, to use the kind of diplomatic language in which Secretary Shultz is so able, he will use his influence in the direction that I have suggested. I hope also that he will take the opportunity of today's debate to withdraw the careless statement that he made in Brussels last Friday that the British House of Commons should not be allowed lo take a decision or even to discuss the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles if the Government thought it necessary to deploy them.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: rose—

Mr. Healey: If the Government fail to carry the British people with them, they will make the failure of their policies certain. That is one of the lessons to be learnt from what has happened in the Western world in the past year or two in the whole area of disarmament and defence.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: No.
The Government must convince the British people that they are using all their energy and ingenuity to obtain an agreement on arms control in the coming year. If the Government fail to do that, they will deservedly lose the confidence of the British people and their policies will surely fail.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): I very much welcome the opportunity to debate such enormously important issues and I am glad to set out, once again, the aims of the Alliance and of the British Government. The security of our country and our way of life is of paramount concern to us all, not only to those who make their concern visible in demonstrations. I shall follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in that the major part of my speech will be about nuclear matters
The North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels on 9 and 10 September was a constructive and timely meeting. The allies demonstrated once again their unity on the two main themes. The first theme was East-West relations in the light of the change of leadership in Moscow. We all agreed on our desire to improve relations with the members of the Warsaw Pact. We made good progress in our discussions of the handling of East-West economic relations. We agreed that our bilateral economic and trade relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe must be consistent with our security, and should avoid contributing to Soviet military strength. Studies are under way on various aspects of East-West economic relations and will be examined again by Ministers next year.
More generally, the change in the Soviet leadership has provided the opportunity to take a fresh look at East-West relations. My approach is one of firmness and realism, coupled with open-mindedness and dialogue. I do not have over-optimistic hopes that there will be a sudden sea change in the Soviet leadership and their approach to the world. We are not naive in our expectations of the policies that the new Soviet leadership is likely to adopt.
Nevertheless, we and our allies have made it clear to Moscow that a more positive and constructive relationship is available if the Soviet Union is willing to adopt a new approach. That is the message that I left with Mr. Gromyko when I saw him on 15 November and it is the message of last week's NATO communiqué. We hope that Mr. Andropov and his colleagues will be receptive to this message. We do not exclude the possibility that the Soviet Union may be ready to look for initiatives that could be in the mutual interest of both East and West.
The second and major theme of our discussion was defence and disarmament. It is hard to understand the apparent views of some hon. Members that I or my right hon. Friends are in some way reluctant to find time to discuss such matters in the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Of course you are.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Government have done more to encourage debate on nuclear and defence issues in Parliament and in public than almost any of their predecessors since the Second World War. In January 1980, I initiated the first debate on nuclear weapons in the House for 15 years. There was no such debate in the previous Parliament. The debate followed the historic decision in favour of the dual track that was taken in December 1979. Since then, the House has had two major opportunities to debate nuclear defence issues exclusively. I am delighted to do so again today as we approach 1983 which, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, is an important year for the Alliance.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the planned location in war time of the United States European command headquarters in the United Kingdom. I strongly refute his accusation that the Government have been furtive or elusive on the issue. It is not the habit of the Government, any more than it was that of previous Administrations, to make public confidential information that is likely to prove useful to an enemy. That would obviously apply to defence plans and to contingency military command arrangements. The protection of information about the security of Britain is not furtive—it is just common sense. I regret the fact that some information was leaked, but as some of the reports are misleading, it is right that I should now set the record straight
The United States European command is located in peace time at Stuttgart in the Federal Republic of Germany. There are no plans to move it. All American combat forces in Europe would in war time be placed under direct NATO command, which would be exercised as at present from SHAPE headquarters on the continent of Europe. The Government have agreed that in war time alternative headquarters for certain residual elements of the purely national United States command could be located in the United Kingdom, should that prove necessary. Those elements would be responsible for

directing the administrative, reinforcement and logistic support of American forces in Europe and for exercising control over other American forces not committed to NATO. I make it abundantly clear that those contingency plans do not change NATO's firm commitment to the strategy of forward defence. Those are the facts, and I hope that I have put at rest the wilder conclusions that have appeared in some sections of the press.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why did the British Government spokesman say that the report of a transfer in time of war from Stuttgart was fundamentally incorrect, when that report was made one day before the American Government's admission that it was true?

Mr. Pym: The report that people noticed was fundamentally inaccurate in the way that I have just described. There will not be such a transfer.
I shall deal now with nuclear matters and especially with the Geneva negotiations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on intermediate range nuclear weapons. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Alliance position stems from the decision taken at the North Atlantic Council in December 1979 to modernise NATO's intermediate range nuclear forces in Europe and at the same time to offer arms control negotiations between America and the Soviet Union on their respective intermediate range nuclear forces. The aim was to safeguard the security of the Alliance in Europe with lower levels of armaments on both sides. I emphasise the fact that the entire Alliance was involved in the so-called dual track decision from the outset. Both elements of that decision—to modernise all NATO's forces and to offer serious arms control talks—were worked out fully and freely by the allies working together. The Labour Government had no doubts at the time about the value and correctness of the careful preparations for the dual track decision, however much the Labour Party may now find it expedient to take a different attitude.
From the start, the Russians reacted coolly to NATO's offer. Even before the double decision, President Brezhnev had said that he would negotiate only if NATO did not decide to modernise. After that decision, the Russians stated that NATO's plans had destroyed the basis for negotiation, and for six months they refused to contemplate any possibility of talks. The Alliance remained firm in its determination to modernise and consistent in its offer to negotiate. What was the result? By June 1980, the Russians dropped their preconditions and agreed that first talks on intermediate range nuclear systems could begin. Even then, they claimed that no agreement could be implemented before the ratification of the SALT 2 treaty.
Despite the change of Administration in Washington, our American allies were quick to say at the first meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Rome in May 1981 that the United States would resume the negotiations begun by their predecessors before the end of the year. They were as good as their word. President Reagan stated in his speech to the National Press Club in Washington on 18 November 1981:
We intend to negotiate in good faith and to go to Geneva willing to listen to and consider the proposals of our Soviet counterparts".
The proposal tabled by the Americans was bold and far-reaching, while being fully consistent with the major principles agreed within the Alliance at the time of the


December 1979 decision. It embodied the agreed Alliance approach to move step by step, focusing first on the most threatening element of Soviet intermediate range nuclear forces—that is, SS20s, SS4s, and SS5s—together with the NATO programmes that the Russians had shown were of main interest to them. That proposal, which is the zero option, offers complete elimination on both sides of the intermediate land-based nuclear missiles.
In exchange for dismantling of all Russian SS20 missiles and their earlier generation of SS4s and SS5s—I might add that the West has no such missiles—NATO will abandon completely its plans to modernise the NATO armoury by deploying cruise and Pershing 2 missiles in certain European countries.
The House appreciates that the threat that we face has altered in the past three years since the dual track decision was taken. In that time the Russians have almost tripled the number of SS20 missiles deployed throughout the Soviet Union. Despite the so-called moratorium announced by the Russians, new SS20s continue to appear. There are currently over 330 deployed—that means 1,000 warheads—of which more than two thirds can reach NATO targets from their present deployment areas. The Americans, with solid NATO backing, have made a negotiating offer which, if accepted, would abolish all these missiles on both sides.
Three rounds of negotiations have been held so far in Geneva. We support fully the United States's efforts to enhance security through the total elimination of all existing and planned Soviet and United States missiles in that category. We welcome the continuing United States commitment to serious negotiations and to consider carefully with the allies any serious Soviet proposal. In the absence of concrete arms control results, the necessary NATO deployments must begin according to schedule next year.
These deployments will include, as the House knows, 160 cruise missiles at Greenham Common and at Molesworth in due course. The United Kingdom, as a nuclear power, has long and rather special experience of United States bases in this country from which nuclear capable systems might operate.

Mr. Orme: Shame. Get them out.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Shame", and, "Get them out". We can, if the Russians are prepared to negotiate the zero option.
There are long-standing agreements under which the use of such bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision with the British Government. British personnel will also be closely involved.

Mr. Healey: I was disturbed, as no doubt were others, to hear Mr. Perle, who I think is deputy defence secretary for international affairs in the United States, imply on British radio this morning that in fact there would be no dual control of the cruise missiles if they were here. He attempted to justify that. If that were so it would, as the Foreign Secretary implied, be a completely novel feature in the presence of American missiles or nuclear capable aircraft in Great Britain. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that if those missiles are ever placed in Great Britain they will be subject to the same dual-control arrangments as for earlier American nuclear weapons based in Great Britain?

Mr. Pym: I cannot give that assurance. The position remains exactly as it was when I made a statement to the House three years ago about the dual track position. I am aware of the point raised not just by the right hon. Gentleman but by other hon. Members and their anxiety that some such arrangement would be highly desirable. I have explained the present position to the House.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: It might be useful if the Foreign Secretary were to check the date on which RAF Greenham Common ceased to be a standby airfield and was handed over to the Americans for its new purpose.

Mr. Pym: I do not know the date off the top of my head. I am dealing with the serious point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I acknowledge that it is serious, and when I made the statement previously I explained the position and the fact that we were satisfied with the arrangements. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have expressed their anxiety. I certainly take the point on board. That is as far as I can go today. I note what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East has said.
The allies were fully briefed in Brussels.

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Pym: I shall not give way. I have a great deal more to say.
The allies were fully briefed in Brussels on 24 November by Ambassador Nitze, the leader of the United States team, about the round of talks which has just finished. Regular consultations have continued to take place in the North Atlantic Council and in NATO's special consultative group. Despite pressure by the Americans for progress towards an arms control agreement, the Russians appear to entertain hopes that they can achieve their objective of preventing or indefinitely delaying NATO's forces' modernisation, without having to pay the price for this at the negotiaing table. We want an agreement. Let the House be in no doubt. That is our objective. We must continue to make it clear that, failing that, these deployments will go forward on schedule. As the Russians come to understand this more clearly, they will see that they have good reason to do business with the Alliance. The chances for success in negotiations on terms acceptable to both sides will thereby increase.
Ambassador Nitze also came to London at the beginning of the month, and I had direct discussions with him about the round of negotiations just ended. I know that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is anxious that I should give details of what has transpired, particularly in the light of certain newspaper reports. I respect his wish to know as much as possible about these important matters. Equally, I hope the House will understand that if negotiations of this difficult and delicate kind between the Americans and the Russians are to get anywhere, and be successful, as the House will want, confidentiality must be respected. This has always been an essential part of successful arms control negotiations in the past.
I do not therefore intend to go into details. However, I can say that the description by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East of an offer by Mr. Andropov to cut by 50 per cent. or more the number of SS20 missiles targeted against Western Europe is not in accordance with our


understanding. The Russians themselves have disavowed recent Western press reports of progress at the negotiations. They said such reports were unfounded.
The Russians have recently floated some new ideas, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned, though I am informed that he is incorrect and that all of these came up before the death of President Brezhnev. Although there has been no precise and formal expression of them as yet, we are studying their implications. A top priority when the negotiations resume at the end of January will be to obtain clarification. There will be further Alliance consultation before then.
I want to emphasise to the House that the Alliance has always stood ready to consider any serious negotiating offer from the Soviet side. If indeed Soviet demeanour at the last round foreshadows the start of a serious move towards elimination of their SS20s, then this would be a step in the right direction. In that event we would of course examine it and evaluate it with the greatest care. We shall find out when the negotiations resume. Meanwhile the zero option remains the Alliance's objective. Whatever else the right hon. Member for Leeds, East may have said about alternatives I cannot believe that he would not adhere totally to the zero option as an objective. I feel sure everyone will agree.
We must be realistic, not naively optimistic. If the Russians find it in their interest to make concessions, it will be because they recognise a firmness of purpose and a determination on our side to stick by Alliance decisions. I do not know of any occasion when this has proved a disadvantage at the negotiating table. The core of our arms control policy rests on the belief that there can be solutions which are in the interests of both parties. I ask the right hon. Member for Leeds, East to remind his Labour Party colleagues that in the business of international arms control negotiations, as in other national and international affairs, staunchness and consistency pay off: weakness and vacillation do not. The right hon. Gentleman knows that well.
NATO's modernisation programme and new deployments will go ahead if, despite all our efforts, agreement is not achieved. I add that this NATO programme, even when fully implemented, will not increase the total number of nuclear warheads, in Western Europe by a single one. We have always made it clear that the modernisation programme would only replace existing warheads on a one-for-one basis.
We have also said, as long ago as the original decision, that success in arms control in constraining the Soviet build-up could, by enhancing Alliance security, modify the scale of NATO force requirements. These would be examined in the light of concrete results reached through negotiations. So nothing is irrevocable. Even when deployments take place—it will take about five years to achieve this fully—we can put the process into reverse, if results achieved at the negotiating table justify that action.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do the new deployments relate to the South Atlantic? If so, what is the legal position in relation to protocol 1 of the treaty of Tlatelolco, which we signed and which he, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), endorsed in the name of the previous Conservative Government?

Mr. Pym: I shall not be diverted by that intervention.
Meanwhile the Alliance will also continue to ensure that existing deployments of the shorter range—battlefield—nuclear weapons in Western Europe are no greater than is required by NATO's strategy. People often forget that, since the dual track decision in 1979, NATO has already withdrawn 1,000 nuclear warheads from Western Europe without replacement—a reduction that has not been matched on the Soviet side. NATO will continue to review its stockpile of nuclear weapons in Western Europe to ensure that the numbers and types available are no more than what is required for effective deterrence. The North Atlantic Assembly when it met in London last month welcomed current efforts to reduce, if possible, NATO's reliance on short-range nuclear weapons.

Mr. Healey: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he will know that General Rogers or sources close to him did a great deal of press briefing a few weeks ago to the effect that it might be possible under certain circumstances to cut the number of warheads by at least one third. That would be a substantial withdrawal of 2,000. Was progress in that direction agreed at the NATO Council?

Mr. Pym: No. We did not address our minds to the point, but the thrust of what General Rogers has recently argued is that if all members of the Alliance agree to increase spending on conventional weapons by about 4 per cent.—if they attain the force goals—the nuclear threshold will be raised much higher. That is a desirable objective but it requires a large increase in defence expenditure in all NATO countries.
In real terms this Government have increased the contribution and resources devoted to defence. We are living up to General Rogers' criterion. But that does not apply to the whole Alliance and, according to the General's argument, it would have to apply to the whole Alliance to enable us to raise the nuclear threshold by a significant amount.
The fundamental point is, as everyone knows, that the Alliance does not threaten anyone. No NATO weapon, conventional or nuclear, will ever be used except in response to attack.
The right hon. Gentleman told the House yesterday that the NATO ministerial meeting had left him confused about intermediate range nuclear forces and the current state of play between the United States and the Soviet Union. I hope that I have dispelled that confusion and made the position clear. He himself, in a way, contributes to the confusion when he suggests, as he did again this afternoon, and as the Russians suggest, that British nuclear forces ought to have a place in these negotiations. I hope that he will tell me that this is not any longer his position. If it is, I would regard it as a case of confusion compounded.
The overriding priority must be to reduce the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union, which are vastly greater than those of the other nuclear weapons States, and to do so on the basis of parity of numbers between the two super Powers. If we took account of the nuclear systems of third parties like China, France or Britain, it would mean that the Soviet Union was entitled to have as many nuclear weapons as all the other nuclear States put together. That in turn would mean endorsing in treaty form Soviet nuclear superiority over the United States—a position at once unstable and probably unratifiable.
The British sea-based strategic nuclear deterrent has no place in bilateral US-Soviet negotiations on sub-strategic land-based nuclear forces in Europe. It is excluded, by definition. The Soviet aim in clinging to this unrealistic notion is to retain its SS20s intact while securing the removal of the greatest possible number of United States nuclear weapons which are based in Europe for the defence of the Alliance. This would further its long-term goal of dividing the Alliance and decoupling the United States from the defence of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman knows this elementary point very well.
By the same token, I hope that we shall no longer hear the right hon. Gentleman echoing calls for a nuclear freeze, which are only superficially beguiling or attractive. The effect of a freeze on these negotiations would be to perpetuate an overwhelming Soviet predominance and to remove any incentive for mutual negotiated reductions, because the primary Soviet aim of preventing NATO's modernisation at nil cost would have been achieved. Those who take the responsibility for preserving peace cannot afford to adopt as policy ideas which, on closer scrutiny, do not contribute to greater international stability and security.
I have concentrated my remarks on the intermediate nuclear force part of the multilateral arms control process because that is where the right hon. Gentleman's confusion was most pronounced. But it is legitimate to remind the House that the Alliance is currently involved in a wider spectrum of arms control negotiations than any previous British Government can remember. Western proposals for reductions in strategic United States and Soviet nuclear weapons would, if accepted, halve the number of deployed missiles of intercontinental range and cut warhead numbers by one third by the end of this decade.
Earlier this year, the West put forward at the MBFR talks imaginative proposals designed to overcome obstacles which the East said had made agreement impossible. At Madrid, the West offered a formula for negotiating confidence—building measures for the whole of Europe to stabilise the military situation in any future crisis and to reduce the chances of preparations for surreptitious attack. Such measures, if agreed, could lead to further disarmament initiatives in Europe. The West is also actively promoting agreement to ban the production and possession of chemical weapons, with Britain very much in the lead at the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. We are thus engaged in a most comprehensive range of arms control talks. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give his full support to that work.
There are no short cuts to achieving agreement on these difficult subjects if we are to secure disarmament on both sides, but it is false and, indeed, mischievous to say that the multilateral approach does not work. I invite hon. Members who doubt me to consider the list of 18 separate agreements produced by the multilateral arms control process over the past 20 years. They cover such subjects as nuclear testing, non-proliferation, the hot line, reducing the risk of nuclear war by accident and arms control in outer space, on the sea bed and in the Antarctic. They are not enough, but they cannot be dismissed as being of no consequence. I defy hon. Members to point to any achievement in arms control and disarmament by alternative routes, despite all the blandishments and catchphrases of the cause that the Labour Party now embraces.
The Pope has said that the strategy of nuclear deterrence is only acceptable—or perhaps tolerable—on the understanding that we all bend our efforts unstintingly to securing a peaceful world by arms reductions and disarmament. That is our continuing moral duty. This Government will certainly do so. We recognise that firmness of purpose in defending our security must be combined with the open hand of dialogue and that if we are to deter our possible adversaries we must do so in a way that reassures our friends and allies abroad and our citizens at home about the prospects for greater security.
The matters that we are discussing today are of the utmost gravity and seriousness. There is absolutely no room for complacency. Far from being complacent, whoever holds my office can never have these immensely important issues far from his mind. The supreme task is to ensure the security of the realm by maintaining peace in the nuclear age. That means that we shall continue to extend the hand of friendship to all who genuinely seek a safer and more stable world. It means that we shall be unremitting in our efforts to bring about international agreements to reduce the arsenals of the world and diminish the risks of conflict. But it means, too, that we shall be resolute in the protection of the values for which Her Majesty's Government, the House and, I believe, the whole British people, stand champion: the democratic right to live in justice, security and peace.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before the debate proceeds, I must tell the House that many right hon. and hon. Members hope to catch my eye. This is a three-hour debate, and only two hours of it remain. I hope that hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called will bear in mind the fact that others want to speak.

Dr. David Owen: The tone and content of the Foreign Secretary's speech totally justify the debate. His speech also justifies the need for the House of Commons to debate these issues at fairy regular intervals as we go into the complex and difficult period of negotiations.
It is hard to quibble with any point of substance in the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). That speech could have been made in a different Parliament by Helmut Schmidt. It was an excellent Social Democratic speech. I feel like the man in the Bateman cartoon who reminds the right hon. Gentleman of the existence of the Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand?"] Hon. Members need not worry. They know where I stand.

Hon. Members: Get on with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has listened to a serious debate so far. I hope that we shall continue in that mood.

Dr. Owen: I shall continue on that serious note, but the House must take into account the views of the Leader of the Opposition. After all, in a sense he is the organ grinder. I shall not offend the right hon. Member for Leeds, East by calling him the monkey. He is more like the orang-utan.
The right hon. Gentleman made a serious speech. The question is whether it is the policy of the Leader of the


Opposition. Indeed, is it the policy of the Labour Party? That is the serious and sensible question that the House must debate.

Mr. Orme: What is the policy of the Social Democratic Party?

Dr. Owen: The policy of the Social Democratic Party is clear. What is more, it has not switched around between 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. It has stayed exactly the same. Right hon. and hon. Members on the unofficial Opposition Front Bench, as I like to call it, may laugh. They may not like my speech, but they will have to hear it. They have changed their position dramatically on the issue.
Our position has stayed exactly the same. We are in favour of the dual track decision that was taken in December 1979. We see it as a readiness to deploy, if necessary, and to negotiate seriously in the profound hope that it is not necessary to deploy cruise missiles or Pershing 2s. That position has already been justified by the revelations of the new Soviet negotiating position. If the Soviet Union had faced a Labour Government under the present Leader of the Opposition, it would know already that there would be no deployment of cruise missiles and no support for Pershing 2s. It would know that all the United States bases would be removed from this country. Does anyone seriously think that the Soviet Union would then offer to withdraw some of its SS20 missiles? It is time that the Labour Party faced reality.
What the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said today on the Soviet offer made the utmost sense. He said that we should not accept the Soviet Union's present position. He is right. He was also right to remind the Government that we do not expect to see them holding firm in all circumstances to the opening bid. What negotiation has ever existed in which the opening bid is the same as the final offer? To hear the Prime Minister speak, one would think that the zero sum option was not only the opening bid, but the final offer. I wish that the Prime Minister would read the Foreign Secretary's speech, which was different in tone, style and sensitivity from everything that she has said on this issue. She is the recruiting sergeant for the unilateralists in this country. If the case for multilateralism was heard more often in the way in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the Foreign Secretary put it, it would carry a great deal more conviction.
The House should not make up its mind on the deployment of cruise missiles until the intermediate nuclear force negotiations are completed or until we have reached a period, for example in November next year, when we shall otherwise have to deploy. To reach that point it will be necessary for NATO to continue to make the preparations for deployment. The launchers will have to arrive in this country and perhaps the missiles will as well. The Prime Minister, however, should give the House the assurance for which I have asked her repeatedly—that the deployment of United States nuclear warheads will not be made in this country until the House has had the opportunity to decide the issue and debate it fully.
That is a democratic safeguard that all hon. Members on both sides of the House should justify. The debate already shows that the House of Commons can grapple

with this issue in a way that reflects the genuine interests of this country and the Alliance, of which we are proud to be members.
I shall deal with some of the detailed points in the Foreign Secretary's speech. I very much welcome what he said about battlefield nuclear weapons. He is beginning to sense the shift in opinion of many people within NATO and the need to change our previous strategy over flexible response and to try not only to reduce battlefield nuclear weapons but to take them totally out of a zone near to the frontiers so that there is no danger of battlefield nuclear weapons being overrun in the event of accidental conventional attack, which most people believe is the only realistic scenario. We are more likely to see a military confrontation.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Dr. Owen: I shall not give way as time is short.
The Foreign Secretary also showed sensitivity on this issue. I greatly welcomed that. Although at present no dual key is offered on cruise missiles, were it to be necessary to deploy them in this country, I detect that the Foreign Secretary would be aware of the concern on both sides of the House that the missiles should be under the physical dual key mechanism similar to that applied to the Thor missiles and to that applied now to the Lance missiles. Those battlefield nuclear missiles are under a dual key mechanism applying to the United States and Western Europe. Therefore, there is already an ample precedent both in the Lance and Thor missiles for the dual key mechanism.
I would prefer to pay for the missiles, if I had to, to ensure that there was a dual key mechanism. There is great merit in being able to say to the British people that if we have to deploy cruise missiles—I hope that we do not—they can be absolutely certain that they cannot be fired from British territory without not just the political but the physical decision of the British Cabinet and Prime Minister. That would start to give the assurance on this issue that the public want.
The Foreign Secretary has cleared up much of the controversy arising from the story about the United States headquarters. Many people believe that it is sensible that there should be emergency arrangements so that, in a war, the headquarters can be moved. We welcome the assurance that he gave that there is no change in the present arrangements over Stuttgart. The Federal Republic of Germany and our continental friends and allies in the Alliance will be considerably reassured.
The Government and those of us who believe in multilateral disarmament must commit ourselves in the next few months to making the INF negotiations succeed. It should be remembered that the initial decision in December 1979 linked the theatre nuclear weapon negotiations with SALT III, because in 1979 it was believed that SALT II would be ratified by the American Congress, and it was always thought necessary to link intermediate missile negotiations with strategic missile systems. In my opinion, the British nuclear weapons system, Polaris, should be in the negotiating pool, but it should be in START which covers strategic missile systems. I believe, too, that there should be a linkage between START and the intermediate nuclear force talks. That is essential.
I shall not speak for much longer, because I know that time is short. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about chemical weapons. I believe that we need a chemical weapon-free zone as much as a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone. Those functional weapon-free zones are most important, based on weapons systems, not on geographical areas, such as countries. I hope, too, that the Foreign Secretary will give new emphasis to the MBFR talks. We are locked in dispute on data. The data situation is such that, for the Soviet Union to agree to the data base of European countries, it has to admit that it has been misleading NATO for the past nine years. It will not do that. Therefore, we need to circumvent the data problem and to agree a common data base on the first or second stage of the four-stage withdrawal process. If we continue to insist on agreement on data as the initial agreement, we shall continue to have difficulties. Let us agree to disagree in the initial signing of the agreement.
The Foreign Secretary, in his final remarks, said that he hoped that we would have more debates, but, as the decision continues, I hope that he and the Prime Minister will think again carefully. Yesterday the Prime Minister appeared to deny the need for the House to make the final decision. The Foreign Secretary was reported—inaccurately, I hope—to have said something similar in Brussels on Friday. It is essential for the House to demonstrate to the country that decisions on nuclear weapons, issues that affect the security of our country and the whole world, are made here in this House. If we cannot give that assurance, people will continue to link arms round Greenham Common, people will lie down in front of bulldozers, and there will be direct action.
The people of this country must have more confidence in the House of Commons to assert its own judgment. If Congress can assert its judgment over the MX dense pack—in my view, rightly—and reject it, if Congress can demonstrate that a President's fiat does not run, it is time that this House, too, demonstrated that it will not accept decisions on this issue being taken on the basis of an Adjournment debate on 24 January 1980. A decision must be made by the House of Commons, and it is in keeping with the Foreign Secretary's own commitment to the House, when he was Leader of the House, and in his readiness to have debates on nuclear questions when he was Secretary of State for Defence, that that commitment should be made to the House. It would give us the necessary stability to carry on through the difficult to-ing and fro-ing of the negotiating process in prospect through 1983.
I hope that there is no vote. There is no need for a vote. No doubt the Tribunite Left will vote for its policy. It would be a tragedy if we were forced into a vote. In my view, this Adjournment should take note of what the Foreign Secretary said and expose the humbug of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).

Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was generous when he described the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) as serious. Certainly, it was serious in tone, but I am not at all sure that it was serious in substance.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East began by calling in evidence various authorities, dead or retired officers, who threw doubt on the efficacy of tactical

nuclear weapons. I shall not go into that controversy, but he should recall that the beginning of the problem that we are now discussing was the loss of confidence on the part of European Governments, towards the end of the 1970s, in the ability of the United States to protect them against the overwhelming preponderance of the Russian short-range and medium-range tactical weapons. Chancellor Schmidt, the Social Democratic Chancellor, offered not only to sell the cruise missile and the Pershing to his people but before that, the so-called neutron bomb. The right hon. Member for Devonport will know what happened in the Labour Cabinet of the day, but that was to be the view of the German Cabinet at the time. Since then, a Socialist Prime Minister of France, President Mitterrand has given strong—if conditional—endorsement to the deployment of those weapons. So it seems to me that the authorities that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East prayed in aid were somewhat inferior to the ones that I have just mentioned.
A paradox lies at the heart of the defence of Europe. No one is ready to put up sufficient conventional forces to defend NATO against an attack with nuclear weapons. Even if anyone did, it would not work if the other side insisted on continuing to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.
What is the alternative to the deployment of tactical weapons that is now proposed, in the present timescale? The right hon. Gentleman—with his experience, it was a scandal to do so—talked about the efficacy of the British and French submarine forces. Any child in these matters knows that they are not tactical weapon systems. They are strategic weapon systems. They could not be pinpointed on to a target. It is irresponsible to say that they would be an effective substitute for either cruise or Pershing.
My right hon. Friend successfully dismissed the criticism of the formation of a contingency American headquarters in this country, although the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, in his submission yesterday to you, Mr. Speaker, made a meal of this, as though it were a terrible and scandalous development. I do not believe it is. However, if our friends in the United States came to the conclusion that the views on defence of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) were to prevail in Europe, I would not blame them if they looked for a fall-back position as soon as possible.
On the Soviet proposal, all I shall say is that, as far as we know, it is informal. My right hon. Friend's Department was quite right to say that it should be clarified in negotiation across the table. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said yesterday that it was an offer that we should grasp, and that it was perhaps the last chance. On the face of it, it is completely unacceptable. It amounts to a man with two pistols in his hands, coming up and saying, "I will lay one down if you promise not to take either of yours out of its holster". That is what it amounts to.
Of course the proposal must be probed. It may be an opening gambit, and something may come out of it, but to regard it as a tremendous opportunity and an offer that must not be missed, is quite unrealistic. I have no doubt that if the right hon. Member for Leeds, East were in office, he would take exactly the same view as I do.
President Mitterrand talked about a halfway house. By that, I understand that if the Russians were to scale down their deployment of SS20s and we in the West were to put in only an equivalent number of Pershings, perhaps there would be something to look at. However, if there is any


realism in the Russian proposal, it is probably because the Soviet Union is finding the burden of deployment a little too much for it.
The question is, therefore, what advice do we give to our American friends? That was the reason for this debate. We must go back to the basic position. Our objective must be to restore the balance of power in Europe—a balance which for some years now has been tilted against us and will be for another year or two to come because of the Soviet preponderance in SS20s and other intermediate weapons. It was Europe which called for that reassurance and we should encourage the United States to achieve it. Yes, negotiate of course, but let us meanwhile press on with the agreed programme and let us avoid spreading illusions as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East did just now.
There is no substance in any suggestion that a solution to the Afghanistan problem is in sight. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would have been inconceivable for Mr. Crocker to have gone to Moscow in Mr. Brezhnev's time. If I am not misinformed—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—this is neither Mr. Crocker's first visit, nor the first contact with Moscow on this score.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East made much of the importance of the survival of hon. Members and their constituents. I do not know that what he said today will help his own survival in the environment in which he now has to live. I should like to think that that was not in his mind. However, the lesson that should be in all our minds is the one of the Falklands war, which, oddly, did not surface in the exchanges yesterday. Had we spent £12 million on organising the defence of the Falkland Islands in the 1970s, we need not have lost a single life, spent any money or lost any ships. That is the story of the Falklands, but it is also the story of the First World War and the Second World War. If we do not learn that lesson this time, the Third World War will come, and we shall deserve it.

Mr. Tony Benn: It would be churlish not to admit that we are having the debate today because of the work of the peace movement in Britain and world-wide. To pretend that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the women at Greenham Common and the other peace camps have not made it possible for the House to discuss this would be to do less than justice to reality.
The defector from Devonport—the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—asked what the Labour Party's policy was. I am able to tell him that at the national executive committee this morning, which was attended by everybody, including our Front-Bench spokesmen, the following resolution was passed:
This meeting of the National Executive Committee supports the Women's Peace Camp at Greenham Common and other peace camps, which is in line with the policies passed at Conference for a completely non-nuclear defence policy for Britain including the removal of United States nuclear bases from Britain.
If there is any question aroused in the mind of that particular defector, let it be set at rest.
The Government are frightened by what is happening. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is always on

television and, from their statements, the Government seem to be beginning to realise that they are up against something that they do not quite know how to handle. They say that the peace campaigners are sincere. I dare say that the peace movement thinks that the Cabinet is sincere. The Cabinet thinks that the peace movement is misguided, and I dare say that the peace movement thinks that the Cabinet is misguided. The Cabinet thinks that the peace movement is giving false information. Certainly the peace movement knows that the Government are giving false information. However, the main drift of the argument, which comes in various stages from the courtesy of the chairman of the Tory Party through to the unbridled extremism of Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne, is that behind the peace movement lies a Communist domination which makes the peace movement the unwitting agent of Moscow and hinders negotiation.
As many hon. Members want to speak, I shall briefly set out what I understand the peace movement here and world-wide to be saying. It is very simple and has no personal dimension to it. First, it is said by the peace people that nuclear weapons make war more likely not less. They do not believe that the peace since 1945 has been brought about by nuclear weapons. They do not believe that, because there are many people, of at least my age and above, who know that the Russians lost 20 million people in the last world war when Churchill embraced Russia as an ally against Fascism. The Russian Government and the Russian people have never shown by anything that they have done that they wish to make an attack upon Western Europe. I hope that Afghanistan will not be put forward, because when we had an empire we invaded Afghanistan three times. I strongly deplore the search for a buffer state around one's border and I went on a delegation to the Soviet ambassador to say so. However, that is not the same as reading into that some plan for a Russian invasion of Western Europe.
It is being said that there is and has been a risk of proliferation. While people talk about multilateralism, there has been an inexorable growth of missiles all over the world. Resources are wasted by the nuclear arms race. The death toll from nuclear weapons is already growing, because those who die of starvation around the world could have been fed by the money spent on nuclear weapons and must therefore be counted in the death toll from those weapons. It is also said that there is a risk of accident and that there is a sharpening of fear.
The British peace movement is also saying that the Government are deliberately misleading us about the military balance, and that is indisputable. Anyone who thought that such a thing was unthinkable about Ministers and civil servants has had a lesson from the Falklands' campaign, when deliberate disinformation was admitted by Ministry of Defence spokesmen on the ground that in a military situation it was justified.

Mr. John Major: rose—

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way, because I must be brief.
By attempting to confuse the strategic with the tactical, the land base with the submarine base, people are given the impression, which is wholly false, that the Soviet Union is stronger than the United States. That is not true. Anyone who reads the Foreign Secretary's speech with care will realise that he had to slip in an admission that if


we marshalled British, French and other Western weapons the Russians would be in a position to argue that they had the right to further growth. The truth is that the United States is overwhelmingly the most powerful country, technically and militarily, in the world. Its gross national product and the percentage it spends on defence are high and its weapons are dominating. The reality is that we are being told the opposite.
The next point, which arises from that, is that the Government are using that fear to boost the arms budget and, at the same time, with the help of minor spokesmen, to denounce critics of their policy as traitors in some way, as agents of the Soviet Union. Another fear that is widely shared is that nuclear weapons undermine democracy. The reality is that just having such weapons means that Parliament is not told the truth. A moment ago the right hon. Member for Devonport said that the House of Commons should speak on this matter and decide upon it. He then ended by saying that there should not be a vote. Compare this Chamber, which was never even told about Chevaline, with the American Congress—

Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet that agreed it in November 1974.

Mr. Benn: The Cabinet was never told about Chevaline. The former leader of the Labour Party, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-east (Mr. Callaghan), has apologised for the fact that he has had to leave the House, but he will be answerable on that question, along with his predecessor. Compared to the American Congress, which has recently had the right to vote against the MX missile, what an impotent Chamber we are. The Attlee Government built the bomb without telling the House of Commons. People realise that the very holding of nuclear weapons—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) follows the previous hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, he will suffer the same fate.
The American bases are not under the United Kingdom's control. If the Government want to confront this powerful movement, they had better recognise that it is international. It has a very strong moral base. Those who think that morality in politics is just a gesture should remember the power of non-violence in India, where a non-violent campaign ousted the British empire from that colony. The movement is growing in Japan. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima one does not have to be a Left-winger to see the disadvantage of nuclear weapons. The peace movement is also growing in America and one million people were on the streets of New York on 12 June. The movement is already frightening President Reagan.
The European nuclear disarmament movement had a massive conference in Brussels and is going to Berlin next April. That same sentiment is also found in the Labour and Liberal Parties and in the Church of England, in its document entitled "The Church and the Bomb". In their pastoral letter, the Catholic bishops in America have denounced nuclear weapons. The Pope and the General Assembly of the United Nations have also spoken on this issue.
Those forces cannot be dismissed by some McCarthyite smear that the movement is Communist dominated. Have the Communists taken over the Catholic Church? Are the hard Left to be found in the American Congress? Are the Trots in charge in the Church of England? Many people

support it, including Labour, Liberal, Conservative and SDP supporters as well as those who do not belong to a party but want to see an end to the nuclear defence strategy of Britain. They want Trident to be cancelled, Polaris to be stopped and American and British nuclear bases to be closed. Hon. Members may laugh and have their little amendments and discussions, but the reality is that a new force has entered into British politics. Any Government, Tory or Labour, who ignore that force do so at their peril.

Sir Peter Emery: I have seldom heard a speech in the House that is more likely to stop any agreement with the Russians on nuclear disarmament than that made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). If he wants to prevent us from reaching disarmament agreements with the Russians, he is going the right way about it. He should bear in mind that what he terms the peace movement is nothing more or less than a movement of appeasement.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Rubbish.

Sir Peter Emery: It is an appeasement of the Russians. The peace movement is doing exactly what the Labour Party attempted to do in 1936, 1937 and 1938, when it took every step to try to stop any form of rearmament in Britain—[Interruption.] There were some in the Conservative Party who thought rearmament unnecessary, but the Labour Party was the leader in that, and we know the results.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a most excellent speech. He referred to Britain's willingness to maintain pressure for a multilateral agreement on arms control and disarmament. He said that he would welcome all serious negotiations and that he was willing to examine even the recent Soviet offer about the SS20, as long as that was in a serious context. He has made a most important statement, which we needed to have on the record.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) suggested that the Alliance was weak. Does he really believe that the Alliance will be strengthened if some in his party—this is a point that the right hon. Gentleman neglected—advocate unilateral disarmament? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman does not advocate that, and I had hoped that he would say so before leaving the Chamber. I shall try to show why am convinced that we cannot bring the Russians to the negotiating table if they believe that they can get any form of disarmament for nothing.
My great friend and colleague, the late Lord Godber of Willington, negotiated the nuclear test ban treaty. Negotiations started as long ago as 1958. However, he had nothing to do with it then. In 1961, when he became Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, he took over the negotiations. Those negotiations were greatly protracted. In a debate in the House in July 1962, he said:
I found that on no fewer than 23 occasions before 25th April, this year, had we made formal requests to them".—[Official Report, 23 July 1962; Vol. 663, c. 985.]
That is a reference to the Russians. Each time a request was made to them, the Russians refused it. It was only when we convinced the' Russians that they would get nothing more that we got them to the negotiating table.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East had something to do with this tale. On 19 November 1962 the British Government, in the midst of the negotiations, announced


that they would still test one of their nuclear weapons. There was uproar among the Opposition. The motion of semi-censure stated:
That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to proceed in the near future with the testing of a British nuclear device thus endangering the prospects of an early international agreement to ban nuclear tests."—[Official Report, 19 November 1962; Vol. 667, c. 947.]
I am glad to say that that motion was defeated. However, it is intriguing to note that it was only when the British Government said that they were willing to continue testing that the Russians realised that they would not get anything for nothing.
The following January the Russians seriously began to negotiate, and within four months negotiations ended in the nuclear test ban treaty announced by the Prime Minister in the House on 25 July 1963. Rather surprisingly, the announcement was made at 11.1 pm after an hon. Member had given up his Adjournment debate. It is only when the Russians realise that they will get nothing from us unless they are willing to give something themselves that they will begin to negotiate seriously.
It is important to press on the liberal element that is associated with the peace movement and is as worried about nuclear weapons as everyone else must be, the fact that if the world believed that we were willing to adopt a unilateral approach to nuclear disarmament, the chance of any world disarmament agreements would be rendered null and void. I hope that that message will go out from the debate. I hope also that more people will expose the weakness of the argument propounded by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.

Miss Jo Richardson: The need for the debate epitomises the fact that the Government are at odds with almost everyone in Britain on nuclear disarmament, and particularly cruise missiles. They are at odds with 144 local authorities on nuclear-free zones. On Saturday morning I attended a moving GLC ceremony at which a flag that can still be seen flying from the flagpole was raised showing that London is proudly a nuclear-free zone. [Interruption.] I do not find that a laughing matter. I feel safer because that flag is there.
The Government are at odds with the United Nations, which clearly expected or hoped that the British Government would vote for freezing the production of nuclear weapons instead of abstaining, as I believe they did. They are at odds with general public opinion, which views the Government policy of overkill—that is what it is—as increasingly terrorising the country. I use those words advisedly.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that if a Government of Britain were to adopt a unilateralist policy, there would be no hope for disarmament. I totally disagree with him. The only hope of achieving multilateral disarmament is if Britain, as a great power, declares unilaterally that it will give up nuclear weapons. That would have a dramatic effect on world opinion. I hope that it would make the Soviet Union and the United States think again.
I should like to concentrate for a few minutes on the issue of public opinion and the Government's disregard for it. To hear the Government and their spokesmen pronounce, one would think that the vast body of opinion

outside the House was made up of "nutters" and Communists. That is not true. I read in The Guardian yesterday that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has made some strong and unwise statements over the past week. He called on people to speak up in support of the British independent nuclear deterrent.
Over the past few years, I have been on many demonstrations, but I have never heard of a demonstration in favour of the independent nuclear deterrent. I suggest that the Government or the Conservative Party organise a demonstration. It is easy to do so and I am sure that the Labour Party, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament would be happy to give advice about how to get hold of Trafalgar Square, how to negotiate with the police and how to organise a demonstration in support of the independent nuclear deterrent. What stops the Government is the fact that no one would turn up at the demonstration or, if people did so, the majority would be those who came to show their feelings and to dissociate themselves from the Government's view.
Feeling is running extremely high all over Europe and in Britain. The courageous and moving demonstration by more than 30,000 women on Sunday and Monday surpassed the expectations of the Greenham Common women who organised it. [Interruption.] The women who went to Greenham Common were not naive or misguided. They fully recognise the danger of the build-up of these weapons. They believe—I agree with them—that the siting of cruise missiles will make Britain a decoy, drawing off nuclear fire from targets in other parts of the world. They do not want to be a decoy or live on an island which is a decoy. They see the concentration on nuclear weapons as a threat to their lives and to the lives of their loved ones. That is why they demonstrate. That is why they brought things that belonged to their children to hang on the outer perimeter fence of the base. That was most moving for those who attended. I was not there but I heard about it from friends of mine who did so.
There has also been criticism of the fact that the demonstration was by women only, and that they would not permit men to take part in the embracing of the base. I understand that, too, because those women who went along have seen that the weapons have been built up by men over many years. The build-up has been going on between Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union. I know that we have a woman Prime Minister, but these decisions are made by a male-dominated society. The women are determined to show that they are not prepared to tolerate it. The Government will not stop them by patronising them or by devaluing what they are doing.
Nor will the Government stop them by the police tactics of Monday. For the first time since the women camped at Greenham Common, there was a good deal of heat between the demonstrators and the police. There were few arrests but the House will recall that when about 20 women were arrested a month ago and were sent—it was a terrible decision—to prison for disturbing the peace at Greenham Common, public opinion was excited and there was public support for what the women had done and what they were having to go through because of it. The tactic on Monday changed. The order went out: "Do not arrest people, but it does not matter if you are brutal in what you do with them." I have heard from many women over the past few days that there was more brutality on Monday than there had ever been before at any demonstration at which they were present.
I have before me a copy of The Guardian of yesterday which shows a photograph of an elderly protester being carried away by two policemen. I find that absolutely disgusting and degrading. The woman should have been allowed to demonstrate as she wanted to.
The people of Britain want the Government to take cognisance of their views, especially on a matter as important as life or death. The people of Britain have not consented to the siting of cruise missiles at Greenham Common or anywhere else. They want the Government to withdraw their consent to cruise, to examine the substance of offers, whatever they maybe, from the Soviet Union and to respond to them. They want the Government flatly to refuse to accept any resiting—even in emergency—of American headquarters on our shores which would be an additional danger to them. They would have liked the Government to vote for the freezing of the production of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Miss Richardson: The majority of people, those women included, want Britain to give up its independent nuclear deterrent but the Government are deaf or, worse, they are not interested in the opinion of the people. I only hope that there is time before a holocaust to remove the Government and to elect one that will listen to the voice of the people.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I suspect that the debate springs from the two-day demonstration at Greenham Common on Sunday and Monday. I suspect also that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) decided that this was a way by which the Labour Party could cash in on the national publicity that the demonstration evoked. Having been at the demonstration on both Sunday and Monday, I know that those who took part will be disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I find it extraordinary that he, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, was unable use the words "unilateral disarmament" in any part of his speech. If the debate has served any useful purpose, it is that the Labour Party remains as divided as ever and that, if the right hon. Gentleman is to be believed, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is giving us the real word of the Labour Party, not the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
The debate has also served the useful purpose of giving us a chance to hear a most far-reaching tour de force on disarmament and arms limitation and on the measures that the Government are taking to try to resolve these most intractable issues. I shall re-read the Foreign Secretary's speech when it appears in Hansard, because I believe that there is a great deal in it for us all to digest.
The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) told us that she had not been at the women's demonstration. If I say that I was there, I say no more than what any Member of Parliament would say about a demonstration so large and far-reaching in his constituency. I pay tribute to the women's commitment. The weather was bad, and they stuck it for two days. I pay tribute to their idealism. I pay tribute also to their organisation, for it was of a high order. I have not before seen a demonstration of that sort where walkie-talkies were quite so freely used or where such

carefully written documents were provided for each of the demonstrators—even outlining the legal position should any of them get into difficulties with the law.
Now that most of the women have left Greenham Common and the euphoria has gone with them, I make no apology for raising the local issues of what we in Newbury will have to do to clear up the mess left by 35,000 protesters and the cost of the demonstration. I heard the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East say that the Labour Party supports the peace women. When I have listed some of the expenses, I hope that he will be prepared to say "We shall foot the bill". If not, the ratepayers of Newbury will be asked to foot it. Otherwise, he has made an empty gesture and left others to pick up the bill.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Talk some politics.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: This is not a council chamber.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My constituents recognise that RAF Greenham Common is a base of the greatest importance. They recognise that they must pay their share of our national defence. However, they wonder why they should now be asked to foot an additional bill as ratepayers. They are being asked to pay £20,000 in legal costs to prove their ownership of the common. They have done that, but it has cost £20,000 of ratepayers' money.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: No. I shall not give way to anyone, because I want to get on with my speech.
The Newbury ratepayers are asking why they should have to pay £3,500 to clean up the common following the demonstration. They are asking why the police presence of 750—I must tell the hon. Member for Barking that I saw the police fraternising with the women protesters on Monday in a way rather different from that which she described—will cost £60,000 at least.

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are being treated to a kind of council comment on what happened at Greenham Common without it being related to the subject of the debate. It is so petty that it is almost unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to hon. Members for co-operating, because so many wish to speak in the debate. No speech has been longer than 12 minutes since the two opening speeches from the Front Benches. If we can continue in this way, many more hon. Members will be able to make their contribution.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I have come to the end of the list of costs. However, the costs remain to be paid and I hope that the Ministry of Defence or the Labour Party will come forward and help out. After all, we have been told that the Labour Party supports the peace women.
The tenor of the debate suggests that Western Europe is facing a threat that puts its security in grave peril. I remind the House that we have had 37 years of peace in Western Europe since the Second World War and that more than half the population of Western Europe was born since that war ended. In other words, more than half the population of Western Europe has never heard a shot fired in anger.
Europe has enjoyed the longest period of peace this century. This has happened in an area which has the


greatest concentration of nuclear weaponry anywhere on the globe. It is the only area in which four nuclear nations virtually rub shoulders with each other. Each possesses the power to do unacceptable and horrific damage to its enemy. However, Western Europe has enjoyed 37 years of peace despite that collection of weaponry.
Peace is a variable entity. Peace in Western Europe is peace with freedom of expression in a free society. There is the freedom to protest that was demonstrated at Greenham. Peace in Eastern Europe is of a different character. It is the peace of the police State with the suppression of political thought. It is the peace that brought tanks into Hungary, martial law to Poland and suppression to Czechoslovakia. The people in those countries wanted to express their views against a regime which decided to impose its will. Nevertheless, it is peace, be it East or West.
How different is the situation in the rest of the world, which, since 1945, has been racked with 140 conventional wars in which at least 10 million have lost their lives. Many millions have been wounded and vast numbers have been made refugees. Some of them have escaped for their lives and have become those tragic people known as the boat people. These are escapees from tyranny. In the same 37 years Western Europe has enjoyed peace.
Whatever other argument is advanced against nuclear weapons, I do not think it is possible to say that their existence in Western Europe has upset the peace or subscribed to a situation which requires us to believe that they are the cause of much human misery.
We are told that although nuclear weapons may have performed a deterrent role, their new form as cruise and Pershing missiles stationed in Western Europe, including Greenham Common—this is the argument of the Greenham women—means that we are facing a new situation. It is said that cruise and Pershing missiles are not merely NATO's response to the build-up of Russian SS20 missiles, although that build-up started in 1976, but are new breeds of nuclear weapon which will make a limited nuclear war in Europe a possibility. It is claimed that the Pentagon, with cruise and Pershing, can think of a nuclear war confined to Europe and in which Fortress America is inviolate and intact.
That scenario is preposterous. It may have been fuelled by injudicious remarks by some top American politicians, who too often forget the effect that words spoken to an American audience can have in Europe. The idea that cruise missiles that travel at 600 miles an hour and can be viewed with the naked eye represent a first strike weapon that is likely to create the possibility of a limited nuclear war in Europe beggars description.
I should like to see a higher European profile at the disarmament talks in Geneva, but I recognise that, for that negotiation to be successful, it is better that America and Russia negotiate, and that America is briefed by NATO.
I have heard the argument that the British people would feel easier about cruise if there were a dual key control. If so, why has none of the NATO countries that is to receive cruise asked for dual key? Why has none of them even chosen to purchase the missiles, but to rely on the present procedure whereby sovereign countries have the right to refuse the firing of the missiles.
Unless I am to be told that the NATO countries are spoiling for a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, does

anybody believe the limited nuclear war scenario? I find it impossible to accept. To that extent, the fear of cruise missiles whipped up by the peace women of Greenham Common on Sunday and Monday is misplaced and dangerously misleading.
I cannot think of anything that either the CND or the peace women have achieved with their campaign. Which Government have offered to disarm unilaterally as a result of what these people have had to say? Which Government came to the talks at Geneva because of the so-called peace movement? As has been said before, it was not until NATO showed its determination to bring cruise and Pershing missiles to Western Europe unless the Russians came to the talks in Geneva that the Russians came. If the negotiations work out, and zero option is accepted, it could mean that the missiles need never be deployed.
The peace women stirred up the emotions of us all. The Labour Party offers unilateral disarmament as its emotional response, but if it chooses to look at the words of Mr. Andropov, the new leader of the Soviet Union, it will find that he categorically states that he does not want or expect unilateral disarmament from the West. He wants a fair negotiation. So do I, and Geneva, with its two sets of nuclear weapons talks, can still produce a result that can lower the temperature of the world in terms of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment ago you rightly pointed out your difficulty in calling speakers. You have a difficult job and I have raised this point of order before. May I draw your attention to the fact that you have rightly chosen to call five Privy Councillors, and that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Lewis: —only one of those right hon. Members has remained in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. He is being unfair to the rest of the House. I have not seen him in the Chamber for very long. He may have been here, but I have not seen him. It is unfair to others who wish to take part in the debate that he should chase his King Charles's head at this moment.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been sitting here the whole time, even though you have not been able to see me. I have been here the whole time since 2.30 this afternoon. I am sorry that I have lost weight, but I was here.
You have called five Privy Councillors, and only the Secretary of State has remained here to listen to the debate. I do not wish to take part in the debate, but I think that it is unfair to Back Benchers who wish to take part. You should bear that in mind when you call hon. Members in future debates.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the hon. Member that he will cut out an hon. Member at the end of the debate.

6.56 pm Mr. Norman Atkinson: I should like to take up some of the points made by the Foreign Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Both of them, like the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke of unilateralism and its meaning in relation to the debate, but the important


aspect of the unilateralist concept has been missed. Incidentally, Mr. Andropov was referring to the United States, not to the European theatre, when he said that he did not expect a unilateralist approach from the West. He was not speaking about the United Kingdom.
The point about a unilateralist argument is that it should be recognised that in almost 20 years of serious nuclear discussion between the major powers of the world there has never been one nuclear weapon dismantled by agreement across the table. That is the first point that should be made by unilateralists taking part in the debate.
Secondly, it is not part of the unilateralist case, in its approach to stage one and nuclear disarmament, to argue for a destabilisation of the nuclear strategic balance. It is to approach that in a more secure form that the unilateralists seriously argue their case. They are saying that the only way in which the proliferation of nuclear weapons can be prevented by agreement is by adopting the initiatives outlined by the unilateralist case.
It is about non-proliferation that the arguments are framed as they are. In other words, to confine nuclear weapons to the two major powers of the world—the United States and the Soviet Union—and to achieve a strategic balance between those powers it is necessary for European powers and the other nuclear powers to make their contributions in the unilateral sense. That is the essence of unilateralists' case, not the other peripheral arguments that have been advanced so far today.
I was profoundly disappointed when listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. He has spelt out the differences in the Labour Party leadership. That imposes a tremendous strain on the Labour Party. We have not many months to go before we face a general election in which the major issue must be nuclear disarmament. However, here we are faced with this profound difference between the case set out, brilliantly on occasions, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and that set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, talked about the mentally moribund character of the Government's approach to these matters, but also said that the Soviet offer should be rejected. He went on to say that we should negotiate, but ended by saying that an accord should be made half way between a zero option and no cruise.
That is not the Labour Party's position, and will not be Labour Party policy as presented to the electorate at the next general election. It is not the basis of our policy, because implicit in that is an acceptance of cruise bases in this country, which the Labour Party has clearly denounced by saying that we shall fight the next general election on no cruise bases in Britain, and no Pershing II. [HON. MEMBERS: "No SS20s".] That is a consideration, but it is not a qualifying caveat with regard to the rejection of cruise and Pershing II.
I hope that tonight's vote will not be misunderstood. It is an official Opposition vote on a three-line Whip, but it does not mean that we are voting in favour of a halfway house between the zero option and no cruise.
It could be said that the zero option argument as presented by the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East is an offer by NATO. That in itself merely confuses what has been said up to

now. Labour Members must keep uppermost in their minds the profound difficulty with which they are now faced and must consider how they can get out.
The Foreign Secretary spoke of the immense superiority of both Soviet forces and Soviet weapons. If there is such a superiority, of necessity the Soviet Union since November 1979 must have broken the agreement on SALT I and SALT II. They must of necessity have done so to have the nuclear superiority that has been spelt out both by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. However, during the three rounds of talks that have taken place at Geneva in the last 12 months, no reference has been made to the breaking of the SALT I and II by the Soviet Union by the mounting of additional nuclear weapons in the theatres to which the Foreign Secretary referred.
Why is there such an absence of protest at the Geneva talks? The verification argument cannot proceed if there is doubt about SALT I and SALT II. The talks between the United States and the Soviet Union have never been interrupted by charges that the Soviet Union has broken the original agreements. Indeed, the strategic and tactical balance that was agreed in November 1979 has never been challenged, in relation to subsequent events after November 1979 or anything else.
There is something phoney about the case that is now advanced in favour of cruise and Pershing 2. The Foreign Secretary now has an opportunity to spell out the changes that have given the Soviet Union this overwhelming superiority. He can comment on the number of SS20s and the dismantling of SS4s and SS5s. He can tell us what has happened about the MIRV-ing of weapons on both sides and about the miniaturisation process.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Labour Prime Minister, has left the Chamber, because he is involved in part of the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). In fact, the most profound comments about that period could have been endorsed by the then Labour Prime Minister, such as whether the House knew anything about Chevaline or whether the Cabinet was told. The former Labour Prime Minister has confirmed that the Cabinet was not told about Chevaline, a view that was endorsed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said that he made costings and told the House of the decision that had already been taken.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East is no longer present, because I should have liked to tell him that our electoral policy is not to go for a halfway house between the zero option and no cruise. The Labour Party is clearly saying "No cruise from now on". That is the very basis of the unilateral argument. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to make a clear statement on where the Labour Party stands [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I need no assistance from hon. Members who have deserted the Labour Party. Despite all the machinations of Fleet Street and the distortion of the truth in which it engages, I believe that the British people are sufficiently mature to understand the discussion within the Labour Party about these profound issues, which envelope us all. The development of the peace movement is a sign that the British people are now mature and can understand the realism behind the arguments.
It is not to the Labour Party's disadvantage to talk about the difference in approach. I am not challenging the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. I understand his difficulty. My goodness, his contribution has been tremendous. He is the longest-serving Secretary of State for Defence. However, he cannot say "Forget my past. I want to get rid of it". He cannot stand before the House without absolute ridicule and say "Forget all that I have said in the past, I am now committed to something new". We all understand why the slow process of change has taken place and why this issue has suddenly become uppermost in the minds of the British people. For that reason, my right hon. Friend, as deputy leader of a harmonious joint leadership, must grapple with this question and provide some leadership.
As a result of this debate I hope that we can now move on to the next stage. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will make it absolutely clear that it is no halfway house for Labour, but rather no cruise and no Pershing 2 for Britain.

Mr. John Major: I shall not enter into the Labour Party's internal disputes, tempting though that may be.
In recent days there have been persistent rumours, which have led to this debate, that the Soviet Union has made some initiative towards arms reduction in Western Europe. On the basis of those rumours, and what we have subsequently heard from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, it is entirely right to have this debate.
It is important that, as far as we can, we should pursue any genuine option that may be available for significant and verifiable arms reductions on both sides of the Iron Curtain. I therefore welcome the debate.
For understandable reasons, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was unable to go into the details of the new ideas that may have been floated. But there will be a general welcome within the House and beyond for his assurance that those ideas will be pursued at Geneva and that the West will consider whether any offers that have been made will lead to a substantial reduction in armaments throughout Europe.
When these matters are discussed, these offers may turn out not to be acceptable—the future will determine that—but the fact that offers have been made is illuminating and encouraging. It is illuminating because it shows that the Soviet Union, when faced with NATO resolution to install cruise and Pershing missiles, has been prepared to alter its stance. The offers are encouraging because this flexibility may offer a chance of genuine multilateral arms reduction. No hon. Member will disagree that that is what we all hope will be the outcome.
There is a lesson that those who tend to oppose the Government's policy about the offer should learn. Would the offer that appears to have been made by the Soviet Union have been made if NATO countries had not been so resolute and so determined to go ahead with their decision to install cruise and Pershing missiles? Opponents of the Government's policies would be wise to address themselves to that question. We cannot be sure of the answer to it, but I strongly doubt whether that offer would have been made had it not been for the resolution of the NATO countries.
It is clear that the movement by the Soviet Union is the best possible vindication there could be for the policy that the Alliance has followed since 1979. I look forward to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament praising the reason why the new initiative has been advanced as well as supporting its existence.
I regret that much of the debate in the country about arms reduction is based on emotion rather than logic. That can be seen at Greenham Common in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and in Molesworth in my constituency of Huntingdonshire.
There is no debate today that more requires cool, clear, detached logic and judgment than the one about how we may seek multilateral arms reduction. There is no subject that would benefit more from a united approach in so far as we are able to achieve one in the House. We all know what our objective is—peace. We want sustained, lasting and secure peace and we want multilateral disarmament. There is no dispute about that. Every sane person wants it.
However, we cannot guarantee peace and we cannot guarantee that we shall not be attacked. Therefore, I beg those who propose unilateral disarmament to understand that many of us fear that any unilateral disarmament by the West, which is not balanced by a similar movement in the Soviet Union, would be a terrible gamble that we believe we should not take for the present generation or for the next one. My fear, which is shared by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that an unthinking clamour for unilateral disarmament may damage the prospect for negotiated and genuine multilateral disarmament at Geneva. That may happen if the domestic clamour encourages the Soviet Union to believe that we shall disarm unilaterally as a result of internal pressure rather than multilaterally as a result of a negotiated agreement.
I do not wish to be partisan, especially today, but the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition, as opposed to that set by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), must reinforce the Soviet view that the Governments of the West might be pushed out of their present resolute posture. I do not doubt the Leader of the Opposition's sincerity, but his views are likely to weaken the NATO Alliance and to impede the possibility of disarmament by our adversaries. It will be a terrible loss if that happens, and the job of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at the Geneva negotiations and the job of the American Government would be made that much more difficult.
I recently came across an old Russian proverb to which I hope the Leader of the Opposition will direct his attention. It is:
Make yourself a sheep and a wolf will come along by and by.
It might. We should remember that.
Some hon. Members and others—members of the CND regard it as an article of faith—claim that they want Britain to give a lead by disarming unilaterally. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note the support of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others. Such people claim that Britain would set an example that other countries would follow. That is all very well. Would they? What countries? Would the Soviet Union follow? Would China follow? Would anyone follow? I strongly doubt whether any country would follow our example. We would have weakened ourselves to no advantage. We


would have weakened ourselves and the Alliance, which relies on the support of member nations to provide for the community at large. That would be the result of the Opposition's policy, were we to follow it.
The alluring fantasy that the Opposition and the CND peddle—that we can safely dismantle nuclear weapons and rely on conventional ones—is surely absurd. Indeed, it is unsustainable.
The Warsaw Pact countries outnumber the West in conventional forces by between three and four to one. If they retained nuclear weapons and we did not, they would need only to threaten to use those nuclear weapons to make nearly all of our conventional forces useless. That is the point that the Opposition must take into account. Unilateral nuclear disarmament would be the clearest possible signal by the United Kingdom that neither we nor NATO any longer had the resolution or intention to defend ourselves against European aggressors or to contribute to the defence of the West. That is the reality that public debate must accept.
We must also destroy the fiction that the build-up of arms by the Soviet Union is in response to the arms that are in place in Western Europe. How different is the fact. The Russians now allocate about one-seventh of their annual wealth to military purposes. That is more than twice that of any Western country. Let me put the point in more lurid terms. The Russians spend twice as much on defence as they spend on health and education combined. By contrast, we spend twice as much on health and education as on defence.

Mr. Frank Alluan: That is not true.

Mr. Major: In the past decade the West has spent consistently less on arms in real terms than the Soviets.
The Government and the nation want peace. Surely that is not in dispute? NATO is a defensive, not an offensive, Alliance. The nation and the Government also want security and genuine verifiable multilateral disarmament. These are desirable objectives, but I fear that we shall achieve them only if we have the courage and resolution to sustain our part in NATO and the Western Alliance. Peace must continue to be our aim. But it must be peace with security. It must be peace with liberty. No other peace can discharge our responsibility to this and the next generation. No other peace should be sought and no other peace is acceptable.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Prime Minister constantly tells us that she believes in multilateral disarmament. The Foreign Secretary said the same thing today. The Prime Minister should support rather than oppose three recent moves. Yesterday, the freeze was debated at the United Nations. The subject has seized American imagination. The motion was carried by 114 votes. What did the British Government do? They opposed the proposal.
Secondly why did the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister not support the proposal that was made on 1 October at the United Nations by Mr. Gromyko? It was for a comprehensive test ban agreement. That would have helped to stop further development of weapons by nuclear powers. It would also have meant that those weapons would not spread to new powers. Most of all, the Prime Minister should support the recent Soviet offer to halve the

number of its SS20s in Europe. At least she should start negotiations on the proposal. Why was it kept secret? Why had it to be leaked to the American press? It was because the NATO chiefs were fearful of the effect on public opinion. They thought that the offer would receive wide support from ordinary people.
The Secretary of State for Defence, for once, did not reject it out of hand. Nor did he automatically support the President. Why does the Prime Minister not back her Secretary of State for Defence? It is because, only on one issue—that of the pipeline for Siberian gas—has she failed to applaud everything coming from the White House.
I, for one, am fed up with the eternal minuet between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. As one side advances the other retreats, so they never meet. There has been reference to multilateral disarmament. For eight years the powers of the world have been meeting at Vienna to discuss conventional weapons. In that time they have failed to agree to reduce them by even one rifle. We cannot afford to wait another eight years.
The Prime Minister and her Ministers state constantly that we have had 37 years of peace, thanks to nuclear weapons. The right hon. Lady is like the little boy rushing towards the precipice shouting "I have not fallen over". If the bomb has brought peace, as we are told, why are people more concerned about war today than at any time since 1939? Why are millions of people marching for peace and against cruise missiles in every capital in Europe and in the United States? Why did 300,000 women ring the cruise missile base at Greenham last weekend on a freezing December day? Why are they doing it? It is because they know that mankind is getting nearer to the brink. The instinct for human survival has been alerted.
My mail, as well as public opinion polls, show that this is particularly so among women. This may be due to the fact that women bring babies into the world and are more impressed by life than by weaponry. According to the Gallup poll on 20 October, despite constant propaganda in almost every national newspaper, 44 per cent. are in favour of cancelling Trident compared to 32 per cent. who want it, with 24 per cent. "Don't knows". Similar responses are achieved over cruise and United States bases in Britain. The polls show 47 per cent. against allowing United States bases to continue, with 39 per cent. saying the opposite and 14 per cent. "Don't knows".
The CND has supporters in all parties and among people who do not belong to any party. That is good. The women at Greenham did a magnificent job. In the end, however, it will have to be a Government decision to accept or reject the cruise missile.
The polls show that a substantial proportion of Conservative supporters are opposed to cruise and Trident. It is a matter of genuine regret that I cannot name one Tory Member who will publicly declare himself or herself in favour of CND.
Three things are needed—the election of a Labour Government; a full anti-nuclear programme clearly and unambiguously stated in Labour's election programme; and the determination of an elected Labour Government to carry it out.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: At the beginning of the debate the House was treated to three splendid speeches. However, the real debate began with the speech of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr.
Benn). Since then, all the Opposition Members who have spoken have revealed the true voice of the Labour Party, the true voice of unilateralism and the real danger to peace that faces Britain and the West.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on giving hon. Members and the nation the opportunity to hear the true voice of the Labour Party. This is our problem. Every 25 years a bout of deep pacifism hits this country. The more recent speeches today from the Opposition Benches bring to mind the famous debate in the Oxford Union in 1933, when the undergraduates stated that under no circumstances would they fight for king and country. I hope very much that Opposition Members who offer the unilateralist line will understand the problems.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Whitney: I am sorry. I cannot give way at this stage.
Opposition Members must understand the real dangers of unilateralism, which created the last war. If those Opposition Members now preaching unilateralism again are really scared of the horrors of nuclear war, they should bear in mind the lessons of the 1930s. The horrors of the 1980s dwarf those that had to be withstood in 1939.
The argument, put forward mainly by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, that nuclear weapons make war more likely has not been proved. No one from the Opposition Benches has mentioned the fact that for the 33 years that NATO has existed we have had peace. Any change must therefore be carried out with the greatest care. The Government know that. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East knows that. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) knows that. I wonder whether Opposition Members ever listen to what the Soviet Union says. I wonder whether they understand Mr. Andropov when he says that the Soviet Union is not naive enough to enter into unilateral disarmament.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East maintained that the Soviet Union had never shown that it wanted to attack Western Europe. He should ask the countries of Eastern Europe, from Estonia and Lithuania through to Berlin. There, the Soviet Union was stopped because NATO organised itself. There, it has remained stopped.
The growth of missiles has been mentioned. The West has withdrawn 1,000 warheads, and the response from the Soviet Union has been to install more. That meets no objection from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East who stated that the Soviet Union had a right to increase the number of its nuclear weapons. The right hon. Gentleman deployed the usual argument of unilateralists which is that all the money spent on arms would be better used on world development. How right he is. Who is leading the charge? Who is spending $120 billion a year? Who is spending between 14 and 15 per cent. of its gross national product on arms? It is the Soviet Union. The United States reduced expenditure from 8·8 per cent. of GNP in 1969 to 5·5 per cent. in 1980. These facts are ignored. Who would suggest, apart from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and his friends, that the Government are using the fear of nuclear warfare to boost the arms budget? The right hon. Gentleman must have some understanding of the debate in Government circles.
If he does not, he should attend Treasury debates to hear how eager hon. Members may, or may not be, to boost defence spending.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East denies that he, as a member of the Cabinet in 1974, was told of the Chevaline decision. Of course he knew. If he listened to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, he would hear that in November 1974 he, as a member of the Cabinet, was told about it. Did he resign? Of course he did not. The right hon. Gentleman even sought to quote the Roman Catholic Church, but the Pope himself has clearly said that multilateral disarmament is the only way to achieve sensible arms control agreements.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that disarmament would be the major issue at the next general election. If that is the Labour Party's intention, it has seriously misjudged the tenor of opinion in Britain. The people of Britain understand the threat and they know what must be done to meet it. The same applies to the people in my constituency who have been excited in the past few days by highly tendentious reports about contingency plans to resite United States communications and military headquarters. They are purely contingency plans, and the contingency in question would be a war in other words, an attack on the West by the Soviet Union. An attack on the West, not the re-siting of a communications headquarters, is what we have to fear. Therefore, anything that makes that more likely is to be feared, and it would certainly be made more likely if we accepted all the pressures from the majority of Labour Members and from the misguided people in CND. It should be remembered that the official slogan adopted in Sheffield by CND is
NATO out of Britain and Britain out of NATO.
We should never let people forget that.
Of course there is a way forward. There is more to be done on arms control. Members on both sides of the House in the campaign for arms control have offered initiatives to the Government. We have offered initiatives at the United Nations special session on disarmament and we shall be going to Washington and Moscow in January. I believe that we can offer a further way forward—the way that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed—but if we follow the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, we follow him to war and disaster.

Mr. Healey: I beg leave of the House to speak again very briefly.
This has been a worthwhile debate, and the majority of speeches, reflecting all sections of opinion, have been serious ones. First, I should like to comment on two Back Bench speeches. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Witney) is quite wrong. We accused the Government of using the Falklands crisis to boost defence expenditure, and the White Paper published yesterday shows how right we were. The hon. Gentleman refered to the 1935 "King and Country" motion. I remind him that that motion was moved by one Max Beloff, who is now the most obsequious of all the Prime Minister's advisers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) completely misunderstood what I said. I quoted with approval President Mitterrand's statement that there should be a middle position between the Soviet Union's deployment of its full SS20 force, which is equivalent to


all the Pershings deployed by the Americans, and the zero option. I was not talking about a compromise between the zero option and cruise.
The Foreign Secretary gave us some useful information, but far too little specific information about either developments in NATO discussions of defence strategy or the progress of the INF negotiations. It would be helpful if the Government offered time early next year to continue this discussion, which will be of vital importance for at least another 12 months.
On several vital points, the Foreign Secretary completely failed to give the House the required assurances. It is true that we raised the question of establishing British control with American control over any cruise missiles in Britain, but the right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that he has made no progress whatsoever with the Americans in the last 12 months in reaching such an agreement. That was extremely disturbing. Some of the things that the Foreign Secretary said shook our confidence in the depth of his commitment to disarmament. First, he refused absolutely to take account of British and French nulear forces in any disarmament discussion, whether in the European theatre or at strategic level. That is preposterous at this time, particularly for a Minister in a Government who propose the purchase of Trident, which would give Britain more desructive capacity than the whole of the Soviet planned SS20 force. On reflection the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that that position is not sustainable. I think that he will discover that in the course of the next 12 months.
In speaking against a nuclear weapon freeze, the Foreign Secretary made a statement which he must know is not accurate. He said that a freeze would consolidate an overwhelming Soviet predominance. There is no overwhelming Soviet predominance. In an unchallenged statement of the position a few weeks ago, the International Institute for Strategic Studies pointed out that the West has a preponderance of warheads, although the Soviet Union has a preponderance of megatonnage, and that, broadly speaking, there is already parity at the strategic level. The right hon. Gentleman would be unwise to write off the growing demand for a freeze, which will become irresistible unless progress in multilateral arms reduction talks can be made in the coming months.
The Foreign Secretary was asked by Members on both sides of the House for an assurance that the House of Commons would have the same right to determine the deployment of American missiles in Britain as the United States Congress has to determine the deployment of American missiles in the United States. His refusal to disavow reports of his statement in Brussels last week makes his position unacceptable to the House. Unless the Minister of State can give us an assurance that the Government will seek the approval of the House before making a final decision on this matter, we shall seek to divide the House at the end of the debate.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The debate has been both useful and interesting, partly because it has focused so much on the arms control and disarmament negotiations actually taking place. One of the difficulties in discussing these matters outside the House is that many people seem not to realise that serious negotiations are taking place, and one cannot discuss the problems of peace and war in a

sensible way without discussing the progress and prospects of those negotiations. We want the negotiations to succeed and we are working hard to that end because we believe that that is the only sure way to assure peace.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) repeated the point made earlier, and I and my right hon. Friends have taken careful note of what has been said about the role of the House in these matters. Obviously Parliament is and must be closely involved, and I believe that the record of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary proves that we have practised as well as preached that. There has been a debate today, there will evidently be a division later and the coming year will bring many more opportunities for further discussion of the issue.
A number of questions and comments in the debate have related to the control of cruise missiles if they are deployed in this country. The arrangement is that it will be exactly the same as for the F111s. That is to say, the use of such bases in an emergency will be a matter for joint decision with the British Government. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we have noted the comments that have been made, but the arrangement is of long standing and was agreed by the Labour Government.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East and other hon. Members spoke about the British and French systems. The Government have made it clear that we do not believe that the British systems belong to the INF—the intermediate range—discussion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) made that point clearly. In the SALT I negotiations, the Russians acknowledged that the systems were strategic.
The first priority in the strategic talks, START, is deep reductions in the American and Soviet strategic systems. That is the American position and we support it. The defence White Paper stated that if circumstances were to change significantly, for example if Soviet military capabilities and the threats that they pose to the United Kingdom were to be substantially reduced, we should be prepared to review our position on arms control and the British strategic systems.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) changed the course of the debate. He gave a version of Labour Party policy that was notably different from that which we heard earlier. The sad thing about his speech was the scorn for this House that breathed through almost every word that he uttered. He neglected the reason why we are here. Parliment is elected by the people and Parliament controls the Government. That is the meaning of parliamentary democracy. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be advancing a different doctrine—that we should count the number of demonstrators in the streets and guide our policy accordingly.

Mr. Benn: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I am sorry, but I have only seven more minutes.

Mr. Benn: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman was equally inaccurate to try to convey the impression that the peace movements that he praised are universal. He listed several countries and organizations—

Mr. Benn: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hurd: I am replying to points raised in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman listed several countries and organisations, not always accurately, to prove the point about universality, but he made no mention of the influence of peace movements in or on the Soviet Union, which is understandable, because such influence is impossible to detect.
Fair-minded people accept the real anxiety of many people throughout the world about the nuclear issue, whether they belong to peace movements or not, but to fair-minded people the impact of the present peace movement is less, because it is obviously one-sided. Repression in the Soviet system has seen to that. If I had more time, I could provide examples. Protesters in the Soviet Union are behind the wire and not linking arms outside it.
The debate has mainly been about the continuing discussions in Geneva in the intermediate talks to reach agreement on that part of the nuclear problem. They are serious negotiations and that is acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and by the powers that take part in them. They have not degenerated into a forum for the exchange of insults. I say to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that that is partly because the negotiations have to a large extent been kept confidential. It is impossible to imagine successful negotiations unless, for large parts of the time, the discussion can take place in confidence.
The Geneva negotiations stem from NATO's double track decision made in December 1979, which the Opposition did not oppose at the time. After a delay, that NATO decision brought the Soviet Union to the conference table on intermediate nuclear forces. That decision may still lead—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East acknowledged this—the Soviet Union to the concessions that will make agreement possible. The NATO double track decision has achieved that prospect, which the whole House wishes. However, if we waver in our determination to modernise those forces in the absence of agreement, we lose the chance of success in the negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made that point clearly.
It is naive to suppose that the Soviet Union would not prefer to keep its present superiority in such weaponry. Of course it would prefer to keep the SS20s without making any concession to NATO. If public opinion in the West were to prevent modernisation, although no agreement had been reached, that would suit the Soviet Union very well. It would still have the SS20s, but the West would have no equivalent. Can anyone seriously say that that outcome would be stable and likely to preserve peace? We must be right to hold out for something better, more radical and safer than that.
It is right to go one stage further in the argument and to discuss another warning. If we allow the Soviet Union in 1983 to shake our purpose, and if the decision to modernise were abandonded without a satisfactory agreement at the negotiating table, the Soviet Union would know that it had found the way, through playing on public opinion in the West, to control the foreign and defence policies of Western Governments. That lesson, once learnt, would not be forgotten. That trigger, once found,

would be pressed over and over again. To call that "Finlandisation" would be an insult to the Finns. That point must be considered and weighed carefully.
The sense of this debate, regardless of the artificial vote that is to follow—

Mr. Orme: It is called democracy, and it is real.

Mr. Hurd: Among those who will vote in different Lobbies there is a realisation that the great prize of balanced agreements, patiently negotiated and capable of verification, is worth an enormous effort. It is the only thing that could usher in a safer world.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), in an interesting speech, mentioned the link between the INF and the START talks. They are the twins in the process and there is a necessary intellectual link between the two discussions. That is why they are happening simultaneously in the same city. The basis of the policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that we shall lose that prize unless we are steady in its pursuit. The prize is there. If we are to win it, we must be willing to negotiate, to listen and patiently and in a reasonable tone of voice to explain to public opinion in all parts of the world where public opinion is important, and in areas where, unfortunately, it has not yet reached, the purpose of our actions.
However, it is not enough simply to be reasonable. We must also be steadfast, and 1983 will be a test of the steadfastness and clear-sightedness, not just of Governments, but of Parliaments and peoples throughout the Western world. Steadfastness is reputed to be one of the qualities of this House and of Britain. I hope that, when the prize of finding a way to ensure peace is so great, that quality of steadfastness will be forthcoming.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:

The House Divided: Ayes 236, Noes 318.

Division No. 33]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Adams, Allen
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Coleman, Donald


Alton, David
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin F.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cowans, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Crowther, Stan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Deakins, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dixon, Donald


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dormand, Jack


Buchan, Norman
Douglas, Dick


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunnett, Jack


Canavan, Dennis
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Cant, R. B.
Eastham, Ken


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
English, Michael


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
Ennals, Rt Hon David






Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (Newton)
Mikardo, Ian


Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Field, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fitt, Gerard
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Ford, Ben
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Palmer, Arthur


Freud, Clement
Park, George


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parker, John


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Penhaligon, David


Graham, Ted
Pitt, William Henry


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Prescott, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Race, Reg


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Robertson, George


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Homewood, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hooley, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Rowlands, Ted


Howells, Geraint
Ryman, John


Hoyle, Douglas
Sever, John


Huckfield, Les
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Short, Mrs Renée


Janner, Hon Greville
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silverman, Julius


John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lambie, David
Stoddart, David


Lead bitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ronald
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Miss Joan
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tilley, John


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Torney, Tom


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McKeivey, William
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


McNamara, Kevin
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


McTaggart, Robert
Wardell, Gareth


McWilliam, John
Watkins, David


Marks, Kenneth
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Welsh, Michael


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, Frank R.


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Maxton, John
Whitlock, William


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd





Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Woolmer, Kenneth


Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Wright, Sheila


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)



Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. George Morton and


Woodall, Alec
Dr. Edmund Marshall.


NOES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunlop, John


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Elliott, Sir William


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Banks, Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, John


Bendall, Vivian
Fell, Sir Anthony


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Best, Keith
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blackburn, John
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Body, Richard
Fox, Marcus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brinton, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Brotherton, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gorst, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gow, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Buck, Antony
Greenway, Harry


Budgen, Nick
Grieve, Percy


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butler, Hon Adam
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hannam, John


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hastings, Stephen


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle, John


Cockeram, Eric
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Hicks, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Corrie, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Costain, Sir Albert
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hooson, Tom


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Peter


Crouch, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dover, Denshore
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)






Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Mayhew, Patrick


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Mellor, David


Jessel, Toby
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Miscampbell, Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Moate, Roger


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Monro, Sir Hector


King, Rt Hon Tom
Montgomery, Fergus


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Moore, John


Knight, Mrs Jill
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Knox, David
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Lamont, Norman
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Lang, Ian
Mudd, David


Latham, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Lawrence, Ivan
Myles, David


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Neale, Gerrard


Lee, John
Needham, Richard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Nelson, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Neubert, Michael


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Newton, Tony


Lewis, Kenneth. (Rutland)
Normanton, Tom


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Onslow, Cranley


Loveridge, John
Osborn, John


Luce, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Lyell, Nicholas
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


McCrindle, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Macfarlane, Neil
Parris, Matthew


MacGregor, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Pattie, Geoffrey


McNalr-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Pawsey, James


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Percival, Sir Ian


McQuarrie, Albert
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Madel, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Major, John
Pollock, Alexander


Marland, Paul
Porter, Barry


Marlow, Antony
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Mates, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Proctor, K. Harvey


Mawby, Ray
Pym, Rt Hon Francis





Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stradling Thomas, J.


Rathbone, Tim
Tapsell, Peter


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Renton, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thompson, Donald


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thome, Neil (Ilford South)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rossi, Hugh
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rost, Peter
Trippier, David


Royle, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Waddington, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Shepherd, Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shersby, Michael
Wall, Sir Patrick


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, John


Smith, Dudley
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watson, John


Speed, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Whitney, Raymond


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanley, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steen, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stevens, Martin



Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Stokes, John
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Immigration

8 1 pm

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (H.C., 1982–83, No. 66), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be disapproved.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark).

Mr. Jenkins: There has been much speculation whether the Government will be defeated in the vote at the end of the debate. I do not know. It depends on a number of hon. Members on the Government Benches who hold views broadly opposed to my own. I make no attempt to entice them into our Lobby. It is entirely a matter for them.
The Home Secretary will no doubt present himself as a latter-day St. Sebastian with arrows being shot into him from all sides. He is nothing of the sort. Sometimes he is unjustly attacked, but not on this occasion. On this issue he has wobbled all over the road. If he is run down from one side or the other it is entirely his fault.
Let us consider the right hon. Gentleman's history in the matter. First, he allowed a foolish but specific commitment to be put into the 1979 Conservative manifesto. It stated:
We shall end the concession introduced by the Labour Government in 1974 to husbands and male fiancés.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: That undertaking contradicted wider undertakings given in the same manifesto, notably:
The rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed. And their opportunities ought to be equal too.
Nevertheless, for largely demagogic reasons, the Conservative Party put the narrower and specific pledge in the manifesto.
The Home Secretary cannot disclaim responsibility for that. He was already deputy leader of the Labour Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray!"] He was deputy leader of the Conservative Party; he was expecting—indeed, hoping—to be Home Secretary, yet he fully endorsed the pledge. As is sometimes, although by no means always, his wont, he took the course of least resistance.
By December 1979, six months after the election, the right hon. Gentleman was already in trouble. He tried to defend the pledge, but he narrowed it, so that it did not, in effect, apply to white women of British stock. He tried to escape from the difficulty of sexual discrimination by running head on into that of racial discrimination. So much for the wider Conservative commitment to the equality of all British citizens legally settled here.
Next the Government began to run into trouble with the European Commission of Human Rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I shall be happy to deal with that institution in a moment.
The evidence given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1979–80 by Lord Scarman among others—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—strongly suggested that the new rules might, and probably would, be in breach of the convention, although the Select Committee did not pronounce on that. The Government of that day said that they were confident that they could refute the proposition, but their confidence quickly began to ebb when three cases were put before the Commission. Last May the

Commission announced that the three cases were admissible. There is little doubt that the Government could not sustain their case before the European Court. No one believes that they would have succeeded.
The response of some Conservative Members is to denounce the convention, the Commission and the court as interfering busybodies, impinging on our national sovereignty. If they can persuade the Government and the House we can come out; we are not locked in.
What would that mean? It would mean that the Government were signalling that they were the first Government since 1951 when we adhered to the convention who could not live with the standards of human liberty that were set. They would be acting uniquely, except for Greece under the Colonels. We world be the only country that resiled from the convention. That would signal equally that we were the only Government out of the 23 who subscribed to it who could not accept the civilised standards that were laid down by the convention. I doubt very much whether that would appeal to the Home Secretary or to many Ministers

Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the European Court seems to have picked on us? Is he aware of the fact that, whereas men can bring women into European countries, in the main women cannot bring their husbands into those countries, but here nearly every husband is allowed to come in?

Mr. Jenkins: It is not the court or the Commission that has picked on us. There have been cases at the court. There is a difference in that in nearly all European countries there is a constitutional provision that runs closely alongside that of the European Court. It would be a sensible course, if hon. Members are concerned about sovereignty, to write into our domestic law the provisions of the convention. That would mean two things. First, it would mean that if hon. Members wished to exercise their nationalism, the cases would be heard in the first instance before British judges. Secondly, it would mean that no longer would we be in the unenviable position of having more cases before the court than any other country.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that rights under convention are broad, so that if we were to incorporate the convention into our municipal law, we would leave to judges the task of formulating basic rights? That must be unacceptable. It is a matter for the House.

Mr. Jenkins: It would be entirely for the House to decide whether the basic rights laid down, to which we have subscribed, should be written into British municipal or domestic law. There would be a great deal to be said for that.
The irony is that the Home Secretary, having been pricked into action by the shadow of the European Court, is almost certainly ending up now with provisions that will fall far short of satisfying court, Commission and convention. The right hon. Gentleman got himself into that position by wobbling so much in the autumn. It has been a classic example of getting the worst of both worlds. He has reneged on his foolish manifesto commitment.
I commend to the right hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members the words of the Lord Chancellor in his Dimbleby lecture, which was a year before one of my Dimbleby lectures. He said:


But in practice while before the election the manifesto is written rather like the advertisement for a patent medicine, after the election it is treated as a pronouncement from Sinai with every jot and tittle of the unread and often unreadable document reverenced as Holy Writ. The actual situation with which a new government is confronted is often vastly different from what it was imagined to be in opposition, and the measures proposed in the manifesto often include the impossible, the irrelevant and the inappropriate. But it is here that the doctrine of mandate takes over. However small the majority, however ill-advised the promises, however controversial the programme, the party activists, flushed with victory, insistently demand the redemption of all the pledges in the shortest possible time, and they are vociferously supported by the various pressure groups whose collective support has been won by the making of those pledges".
The Lord Chancellor added that that doctrine was profoundly unconstitutional. The Home Secretary should have taken greater courage and fortified himself with the words of his noble Friend. He would have done much better to have done earlier and to do now what he is not doing—what is right, sensible, coherent and defensible. That would be to return to the position of 1974. He should treat men and women wholly equally and allow the right of marriage to go with the right of settlement. The penalties that he pays for doing otherwise are enormous. He offends the rights of citizenship even as capriciously, unfairly and obscurely defined as in the British Nationality Act. He offends against family life; he offends against sexual equality; he offends against racial equality—all for the sake of excluding what? Perhaps 2,000, at most 3,000 people a year. I have never believed in a lax immigration policy.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall not give way.
I could call in aid, if I thought it right—I am not sure that I do—the speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) in the debate in June this year. He said that rules had been more tightly enforced, as far as he could see, under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments. He paid a rather backhanded compliment to the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill).

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I am not giving way.
The hon. Member for Halifax was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and did a difficult job with great diligence, skill and sympathy. I have never believed in a lax immigration policy. In two periods at the Home Office I tried to apply principles of justice, humanity, consistency and proportion. That is not being done at present. The Home Secretary, in spite of his natural good instincts, has allowed himself by weakness to be pushed away from those principles. By reversing the burden of proof and imposing two-year restrictions, enforceable whatever the cause of the break-up of the marriage—even death—he has produced modifications from his original proposals which, in the words of The Times this morning, are "deplorable". The article stated:
If at first you cannot appease, try, try and try again.
On top of other weaknesses in the Act or the rules there is the abandonment of jus soli, which has served us without noticeable mischief for centuries past, since the time of Edward III. It has a substantial effect upon children

born here. There is the rather ridiculous provision that someone coming to take up a partnership in an American law firm in London has to bring £150,000 with him.

Mr. John Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Michael Shersby: rose⅀

Mr. Jenkins: I am not giving way. There is continuing discrimination and a continuing mixture of sexual and racial discrimination. Let there be no doubt: these proposals are not putting women on an equal basis with men. Let there be no doubt that they are deeply damaging to the interests of people who are settled here, as opposed to citizens. They are treating women who are British by stock differently from those who are British citizens, even under the right hon. Gentleman's own Act. In all those ways, the right hon. Gentleman has produced an unacceptable package.

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: No, I shall not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have nearly finished. I shall not give way because I have done so three times, and it is right that speeches should be short and that other right hon. and hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak.
In all those ways, the Home Secretary has produced an unacceptable package. He should choose firm ground and stand on it. If it were sensible, fair and just ground, we would support him. So long as he does not choose firm ground, he will be a floating island, and we shall not support him.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): Normally, I should not wish to cross swords with one of my predecessors—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] actually, I shall do so—but I have been, as I regard it, provoked. One reason why I normally would not do so, is that a sense of humility should descend on all Home Secretaries if they look at what has happened over the years in dealing with the immigration rules.
The problem started with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who imposed stricter controls. In 1974 the matter came before the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). In between, of course, it is fair to say that my noble Friend Lord Carr lost some immigration rules. There is nothing new in that. He was defeated and had to produce new rules. Then we had the right hon. Member for Hillhead. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summmerskill) should be careful, because I have some quotations from her that she might not like.
The right hon. Member for Hillhead arrived with a great flourish of trumpets in 1974. He said that there were great difficulties and that he would consider them, and he wondered whether there might not be abuse if he made changes. He thought about the matter for a time and then decided to make the changes. Of course, it was not long—perhaps three years—before he moved to other pastures and his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), his successor, decided that his proposals had to be restricted, and they were. So let no Home Secretary live in a white sheet. It is an extremely difficult matter and we all know it.
I shall put only one point to the right hon. Member for Hillhead. For him, of all people, to talk about lack of courage and the line of least resistance, in view of what


he did when he was deputy leader of the Labour Party on many matters, including Europe and everything else, and for him to lecture me about that is the height of hypocrisy. That is something to which I object. I know exactly what happened. After all, I have been in the House for a long time. So has the right hon. Gentleman. I know what the moves were and all the things that happened, and all the things that went on over Europe. Oh yes. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman sitting there and accusing me of lack of courage.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman, whom I am glad to have not provoked but brought into such fine fighting form, tell the House exactly what he thinks I should have done over Europe, beyond leading 68 of my hon. Friends into the Government Lobby and providing a decisive majority in 1971 and then, when I thought that that policy was being contradicted, resigning as deputy leader? When has the right hon. Gentleman ever resigned as deputy leader?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that if the record were examined, it would show exactly what the right hon. Gentleman did. If he asks me why I have not resigned as deputy leader of the Conservative Party, I can tell him quite simply that it is because I happen to have the utmost admiration for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] My record of support for my party through thick and thin over many years is there for everyone to see. [Interruption.] I will not have it denied, because it is true. However, I have been provoked to move away from the purpose of the debate, and I shall now return to it.
We are dealing with what I accept is a difficult and complex area. I have no illusions. No Home Secretary can ever have any illusions in this connection. Some rough things have been said about me by my predecessors, but I can only say that none of them managed to get away from some of the problems that I face, and it is fair that they should accept that. They can criticise me for what I am doing, and I can criticise them for their actions, but it is fair to say that.
We had a full day's debate on the draft rules that I proposed. Therefore, I shall not make a long speech, and it would be wrong for me to go over all the ground of that debate. It is not unreasonable to say that it is proper to go forward from that.
I hope that the House will consider carefully the options that are available to the Government in making these rules. First, there have to be new rules. I do not think that anyone denies that. The British Nationality Act is a major measure and of great importance. It is a measure which at various stages was ducked by Governments of all parties, including my party, but this Government have now undertaken the task. It is crucial, and I believe that it is important for the future of this country. The Act means that we shall have a new language, a new British citizenship created by it, and changes in the rules are inevitable.
There are widely differing views in the House on the matters that have to be dealt with in the rules. From the debate on the White Paper the Government know that those who are unhappy with our original proposals came to their points of view for wholly differing reasons.
The Government, as any Government would in the circumstances, have given a great deal of thought to the best way forward. The rules now before the House are

based on a policy which the Government believe is consistent both with the British Nationality Act, so recently passed by the House, and with the need for firm immigration control. I shall endeavour to explain why the Government believe that that is so and why these rules are the best way forward.
Before coming to the marriage rules I want to refer briefly to the rules applying to children who, although born here, will not be British citizens. The position of those children was settled after considerable debate in the proceedings on the British Nationality Act. I believe that it was right that the Act should provide, as it does, that a child born here should have British citizenship only if either of his parents is a British citizen or is lawfully settled here.
The great majority of children born here will continue to be British citizens. However, significant numbers of children are born in the United Kingdom to parents who are here only temporarily or unlawfully. The Act, and the corresponding rules, will prevent such children from gaining automatically by their birth a permanent right to live in Britain, which, in due course, they could pass on to their children.
This change will prevent a potentially large immigration commitment from building up. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] It will also make it easier to remove parents here unlawfully who have children born in the United Kingdom. Those who want to question this must look at the Green Paper "British Nationality, Law" which was produced by the Labour Government. It said:
On the whole the Government consider that the simplicity and inclusiveness of the ius soli method outweighs its drawbacks.
That is not a powerful and major conclusion. It is a rather marginal conclusion.
Broadly speaking, the rules that I have made for the immigration control of children who come into this category provide that they will be treated in the same way as their parents. That is fair and easily understood and I believe that the rules will prove much less difficult to operate in practice than some have tried to make out. I am grateful to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Committee on the British Nationality Bill who, believing that this measure was right, strongly supported it. It is part of the Act from which these rules flow, and I believe that they are widely supported.
Let me try to help the House by stating the options that were available to the Government on the admission of husbands and fiancés. We could have retained the effect of the present rules—some of my hon. Friends advocate this—by requiring the woman who sponsored the admission of a husband or fiancé to be a British citizen born in the United Kingdom or to have a parent who is born in the United Kingdom. That, of course, would have distinguished between different British citizen women—those born here or with a parent born here, and those who, having been born elsewhere, are British citizens by registration or naturalisation.
The Government took the view that, having created a British citizenship which is in line with those who belong to Britain, it would be wrong to differentiate in that way. In 1980 a special definition, based on those bore here or with a parent born here, had to be invented. Now that we have the new British citizenship, there is no reason for such a device.
In addition, from the point of view of immigration from the Indian subcontinent, we had to have in mind the diminishing effect of a "born here" requirement. Already, of the Asian girls in the United Kingdom now aged between 10 and 15, about half will be British citizens by birth. For Asian girls under 10 the proportion is about three-quarters. So the effect of distinguishing between British citizen women born here and those not born here is bound to diminish. It will become very small indeed in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why bother?"] That is not for me to argue. I am giving the reason why I believe that it was right to move to the British citizen definition. One reason is that I believe that the "born here" definition will be eroded, and substantially eroded, over a period.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I pursue the Secretary of State on that point, because I have great respect for his stand on civil liberties? For the sake of a diminishing minority, which will become more and more insignificant, why is he putting Britain's good name in terms of racial equality at risk?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a rather extraordinary comment. We are dropping the definition of "born here", which we both think is wrong. Some of my hon. Friends think that I should retain it. However, I believe, and I think that the right hon. Lady believes, that it is wrong and that we should move to the British citizen qualification. That is what I am advocating, so I do not quite understand the right hon. Lady's point.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: we are concerned because a man settled here can bring in a woman but a woman settled here cannot bring in a man.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has followed this subject for a long time and he knows that that is inherent in the 1971 Act and everything that flows from it.

Mr. Lyon: That is not true.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is inherent in the 1971 Act and is still there. To change the provision would require legislation that goes outside the rules, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
The alternative option was to confine entry to the husbands and male fiancés of British citizen women, whether or not they were born here. That is what we have done. But, at the same time, and since our original proposals, we have considerably strengthened the safeguards to prevent the rules from being used for immigration purposes. The right hon. Member for Hillhead believes that those safeguards are wrong, but they will have a deterrent as well as an actual effect, which together will reduce the number of those who might otherwise have gained settlement.

Mr. Budgen: To what extent will the number of successful applicants be reduced by the application of the safeguards?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give the precise figure, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, who has studied these issues carefully, will accept that there are two different problems: the number of applicants, and the number of those who are accepted for settlement. I shall deal with some of the effects of the safeguards that were introduced in the 1980 rules. I want to prove that the safeguards had

an effect. If they did, any extra safeguards will obviously have a further effect. I hope that I can prove that to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
We are, of course, keeping the three specific tests in the 1980 rules: the marriage must not be primarily for immigration purposes; the couple must have met; and there must be an intention to live together. No one is allowed to stay permanently until checks have been made to ensure that the marriage has taken place and that it continues to exist. There are those who say that to move the safeguard on marriage from one year to two years represents a serious change. I read the debates in which the hon. Member for Halifax rightly defended the contention—as my hon. Friends did—that it was right to have the test after one year.
However, if it is right to have it after one year, there is no reason why there should not be a check after one year, and again after two years. That is a perfectly reasonable strengthening of the safeguards. The hon. Member for Halifax and the Labour Party accepted one year and said, in 1977, that that was necessary. In 1977 the Labour Party said that it was right to reverse what the right hon. Member for Hillhead had done in 1974. If it is right after one year, I cannot see why it is not right after two years. Two years is a perfectly reasonable period. There is no great argument between one and two years.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has rightly said that marriages should not be entered into primarily for the purpose of immigration. As I understand, as I have read, as I have been told and as many hon. Members will know, the custom on the Indian subcontinent has been for women to go where the men reside. Would it be the case that any man wishing to come from the Indian subcontinent to the United Kingdom for the purpose of marriage would be doing so primarily for immigration purposes?

Mr. Whitelaw: If one translated that across the board, not only to the Indian subcontinent but to many other parts of the world, one might have some awkward consequences with regard to people marrying Australians, Canadians, Americans and so on. If one is to take that point of view, one must consider the issue in the round.
As the safeguards have been criticised, I wish to explain, first, what they are, and, secondly, why I believe that it was right to introduce them. First, a decision whether to allow a husband to stay permanently will be taken after two years, instead of after only one year. That is a reasonable strengthening of the safeguards. Some people say that this will not work, that it is bureaucratic and will cause great dificulties. I cannot see the argument that it is right to have it for one year, which all my right and hon. Friends supported in 1980, but that it is suddenly wrong to have it for two years.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: If the change from one year to two years is of any significance, it must follow that my right hon. Friend must know how many husbands have been returned when a marriage has broken down within one year. Will he tell the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. About 150 in the past year. Secondly, the onus will be on an applicant to show—

Mr. Budgen: I tabled a written question which was answered on 18 November, when it appeared that the


information that my right hon. Friend has just given was not available. Perhaps he will explain how that information has become available since 18 November.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have given the House the best estimate. I thought that that was right. There is no definite figure and that was the best estimate that I could give. As I was asked by my hon. Friend, I thought it reasonable to give the best estimate. That is what I have done and I hope the House will accept it in that spirit.

Mr. William Pitt: What percentage of the number of men admitted for marriage is that figure?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give that figure, but if there is any way of giving it, it will be given before the end of the debate. I doubt whether it can be, and I certainly cannot give it now.
Secondly, the onus will be on an applicant to show that the three specific tests originating in the 1980 rules have been met.
Thirdly, we have provided that when a marriage has broken down within two years, deportation of the husband should be the normal course, regardless of the reasons for the breakdown. I am assailed on the one hand by those who say that these safeguards will have no effect, and on the other by those who say that they are oppressive. Neither view, in my judgment, is correct.
We know from experience of the 1980 rules that the tests introduced then can be applied without being oppressive. I hope that my hon. Friends who question that will remember that they were enthusiastic about the proposals that were introduced in the 1980 rules. If such proposals were reasonable in 1980, why should they not be reasonable in 1982? I do not see the difference.
What has been the result? First, immigration officers in the Indian subcontinent refused entry clearance to over 600 husbands and male fiancés in the 12 months to 30 September 1982. Failure to meet these tests was the reason for refusal in a significant proportion of the cases. Also, we believe that the number of men refused permanent stay as husbands after entry, because of a failure to satisfy the tests, is, as I said to my hon. Friend, likely to be about 150 a year. Those who do not leave voluntarily can be, and are, deported.
There is no reason why the change in the burden of proof in the Indian subcontinent should not help the immigration officer. He has to make his decision on a judgment of the case and I believe that it is reasonable to put it this way. At present the onus is on the officer concerned to have reason for not granting an application. The rules that I have made will, instead, put the onus on an applicant to show that the conditions have been met. I submit that it is reasonable, when the rules confer such an important right, that the man should have to show on the balance of probabilities, which is always the test in these matters, that he qualifies for it. We are conferring on him, as I think the House will accept, an important right.
A couple who have married for genuine reasons and have a subsisting marriage, where the man was not here unlawfully before the marriage, have nothing to fear from these tests. Only those who marry for immigration reasons, who have never met their fiancée or wife, whose

marriage has never subsisted or has broken down, or who were here unlawfully when they married, have anything to fear.
The man whose marriage breaks down within two years has no real claim to remain here permanently. The basis of his admission will have ceased to exist. Since the marriage no longer subsists, his return to his own country will not cause unacceptable hardship to his wife, and unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so I believe it is right to expect him to leave.

Mr. Marlow: What about those who cannot be found?

Mr. Whitelaw: We have found quite a considerable number. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is reported to have said that these safeguards go too far and will in practice make it impossible for husbands and male fiancés to join British citizen women. I do not accept that. Of course the safeguards will have an effect; they are intended to do so. But they are not intended to erect, and will not erect, barriers that are impossible for genuine marriages to surmount.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Home Secretary referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and the change to 12 months. On that occasion she told the House that a natural breakdown of marriage within 12 months would not be a cause for allowing people to be sent back. The tribunal took the meaning of the rules to be something quite different, and now adjudicators are told that if there is any breakdown in the marriage the person can be sent back. The right hon. Gentleman has used that argument. In the meantime, there has been a change of emphasis. That is what will happen with his rules. He may mean one thing, but when the rules are interpreted they will be a good deal fiercer than he intends.

Mr. Whitelaw: If the marriage breaks down, is there any good reason why the person who has come in on that basis should remain in this country? I do not see that there is and that is what I am saying specifically. Why should someone who came here to marry someone in this country stay here and have a job in this country which another person should have if the marriage breaks down?

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of a husband who becomes a father in this country? If the marriage breaks down, he cannot remove the child, who is British. He cannot remove the wife, because she is British. By sending away the father the Home Secretary will be denying that child regular access to his father. Is that not a reason for reconsideration?

Mr. Whitelaw: That can be argued, but I should have thought that if the marriage had irrevocably broken down and the husband was not staying with the wife or subsisting in the marriage, there would be no reason why, if the wife was taking charge of the child, the husband should not go. The marriage has broken down and the husband has left. It is realistic to say that the husband may have abandoned the whole family. If he has done that, what is the purpose of his staying in the country? I cannot see it.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the Home Secretary accept that if a man were kept in the country in the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend he would at


least be responsible by law for keeping the child, whereas if he is deported the British taxpayer will have to support the wife and child?

Mr. Whitelaw: If there is a good reason for the husband to stay there is discretion within the rules. I do not believe that if a husband has abandoned his family altogether and does not wish—[Interruption.] That is the case. There is discretion. However, if the husband has abandoned his wife and child, there is no reason for him to stay in the country.

Mr. Mike Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman is showing the kind of fascination with his argument of which my right hon. Friend accused him. It is not the case that every husband who decides that he cannot get on with his wife wishes to abandon his child.

Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously—

Mr. A. J. Beith: What about custody?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised a different point. If the husband had custody of the child, the question would be different. I maintain my point that the man who has abandoned his wife and child, should not be allowed to stay in the country. I cannot see the argument for it.

Mr. David Ennals: rose—

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall give way only once more.

Mr. Ennals: I wish for clarification on one particular point that relates to a constituency case, with real people. A person born in Hong Kong came to this country at the age of nine and has lived here ever since. She was educated here and her parents came here some years before that, although she was not born here. She married a man from Hong Kong and then returned to Hong Kong to meet his family. Subsequently, he has been denied the right to come here. She has a child that is now several months old. Is it not likely that by his decision to force the husband to stay outside, the Home Secretary is endangering a genuine and real marriage? Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that under his new safeguards that husband will be allowed to join his wife and family?

Mr. Whitelaw: In all these cases, I simply point out, although many will argue against it, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have been seen to take a great deal of personal trouble over many of these individual cases.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: No.

Mr. Whitelaw: We have properly exercised our discretion. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) will always say, "No," but we have.

Mr. Ennals: No, each time.

Mr. Whitelaw: If individual cases are put to me, it is only proper that my right hon. Friend and I should be entitled to look at them on that basis, and we do so.
As I have already said, the rules are an attempt to build solidly on the rights of British citizen women and the need

for checks on the use of marriage for immigration purposs. Many hon. Members will be familiar with the difficulty of framing rules that meet those twin objectives. All my predecessors have faced this problem. They have wrestled with it and have sought to find a solution that meets these two criteria.
In 1980 we restricted the category of those who were eligible for admission and created new, more effective safeguards against abuse. Our new rules toughen still further the safeguards against abuse, while bringing the eligibility of the wife into line with our new British citizenship. That is extremely important.
If, as we have done, we pass a British Nationality Act which relates British citizenship to our immigration rules, it is right that we should make a proper start and be seen to be doing so. That is what we are doing, and I ask my hon. Friends to recognise the purpose of that.
There is no question of our going back to the pre-1980 position. That should also be completely understood. In fact, no alternative would escape criticism in some part of the House. I do not know of one. However, I believe—and I stand by it—that what I have sought to do provides the best chance for the House as a whole to secure a lasting answer to this controversial and difficult question on which there are so many conflicting views.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The most charitable thing that can be said of the Home Secretary's speech is that he was making a case that it was impossible coherently to defend. It is inconceivable, apart from the way that he entertained the House for more than 40 minutes, that he should believe that the course he is urging on us is right in principle or in practice. In our view, it is wrong in both particulars, and for that reason we shall vote against the regulations.
The Home Secretary will recall that on 11 November the Opposition abstained on the motion to take note of the revised immigration rules. We did so because we believed that the Government's proposals contained a genuine though limited concession. In the original document, foreign husbands of women who were British by regisration or naturalisation were to be allowed to join their wives in Britain on the same basis as women who were British by birth.
That equality—treating all British women irrespective of how they have achieved their citizenship on exactly the same basis—was a principle that we implemented in Government, campaigned for in Opposition and supported during the test case at the European Commission on Human rights. Indeed, the Home Secretary will recall that after I visited the Commission in June, I said publicly, and was reported as such, that the Government had got themselves into such an impossible position that the Commission would require them to change their mind, and change their mind the Government began to do.
Because of that genuine but limited concession, we abstained on the principal issue when the subject was last discussed. But the rules as they now exist—which, in effect, deny the right of a woman who is British by registration to bring her husband into the country—discriminate cruelly against the black British. It is nonsense to pretend otherwise. Indeed, it is because they discriminate against the black British that so many Conservative Members do not want to see any change in those rules.
Our position is absolutely clear. Husbands of women who are British citizens, however those women achieved their citizenship, should be allowed into this country. Moreover, we believe that husbands of women who have the right of abode in Britain should be granted a parallel right of abode themselves. For all the provocation, pleas and requests, the Home Secretary has not attempted to refute our argument that the fiancés of women should be treated in the same way as the fiancees of men.
During two consecutive debates in the past five weeks, the Home Secretary has continually been asked why women are treated in one way and men are treated in another. He has not yet done the House the courtesy of attempting to explain why he makes that differentiation. It is quite intolerable that, under these rules, or, for that matter, any others, there should be one law for women and another for men. What now operates is a conscious and deliberate discrimination against women.
When we last debated the subject on 11 November, some Conservative Members rejoiced in that discrimination. They said that one of the reasons why they wished the rules to be preserved in their present form was that they did not believe that a British woman should have the same right for her husband to join her as a British man has for his wife to enter Britain. That is absurd and indefensible. We wholly reject it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: If that is absurd and indefensible, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is exactly what his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) did in 1969?

Mr. Hattersley: I can only urge the hon. Gentleman to read the previous rules.

Mr. Hogg: I have.

Mr. Hattersley: The two revisions that were made by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and subsequently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) put men and women on exactly the same footing. It is absurd to suggest that a big difference existed then. Our wish is to return to that previous position—the position that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) opposed if he fought the 1979 general election on the Conservative manifesto. The Conservative manifesto specifically insisted that the Conservative Party, if elected, would reinstate the discrimination that the Labour Party had removed. We shall remove it again when we return to power.
Today's debate has naturally and inevitably revolved round and concentrated on rules governing the entry of husbands and wives to Britain. The Opposition are opposed to other aspects of the immigration regulations as well. We are especially opposed to the provisions concerning dependent relatives, visitors and the system of the assessment evidence. However, it is natural that we concentrate today on the changes that affect wives and husbands—the changes that have been brought about by pressures on the Home Secretary by the Adullamites who sit on the Conservative Back Benches.

Mr. Stanbrook: What?

Mr. Hattersley: The Adullamites—what Mr. John Bright called the disenchanted, the dispossessed and the disgruntled. It seems to be a very fair description of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).
The debate revolves round the so-called concession that the Home Secretary announced when we last debated the subject. It is a concession that, in a sense, we are debating today because we believe that it has effectively been removed as a result of the way in which it has been hedged round by obligations and requirements to provide evidence and information which, in most cases, it will be impossible for the applicant to provide.
I was moved by the intervention of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who behaved as I fear many people in Britain will behave if the new rules are adopted. I fear that perhaps even some immigration officers may behave in that way. The hon. Gentleman's assumption was that any husband who wishes to come to Britain would come not for the primary purpose of marriage, but for immigration for its own sake. Because the hon. Gentleman made that assumption, it does not mean that it will not be made by others. Thank heaven, the hon. Gentleman is not typical of British opinion. Nevertheless, I believe that his view will be stared by many people who have the job of implementing the rules. The hon. Gentleman revealed exactly what will happen if the House passes the assumptions that the Home Secretary requires.

Mr. Nick Budgen: The Home Secretary suggested that there will be up to 3,000 applicants a year. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the effect, in his opinion, of the safeguards upon those applications? Does he believe that the number of successful applicants will be cut down to 500 a year? What sort of figure has he in mind?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not accept the 3,000 figure. Nor, I suspect, does the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was not the Home Secretary who made the assessment of 3,000. It was, in my view, made imprudently by the right hon. Member for Hillhead, who talked about a difference of about 2,000 or 3,000. Those are not figures that, in my view, bear much examination. I do not believe that the new regulations will deter applications. I believe that the new regulations will prevent the entry into this country of genuine male fiancés who want to contract genuine marriages.

Mr. Budgen: How many?

Mr. Hattersley: I believe that the numbers will be reduced substantially. That is why the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and those who lurk around him are wrong to attack the Home Secretary. I am perhaps doing my best to support the Home Secretary's case. I can only say, in honesty—slightly mitigated by my distaste at the thought that the hon. Gentleman might be in the same Lobby as myself—that I believe that the Home Secretary's proposal will reduce rather than increase the entry of husbands into this country. If the hon. Gentleman has read the document, he must know that, in one particular, this is true.
If the new requirement to provide information and the movement of the onus of proof are to have any effect, it will bear on a category of persons who were not previously affected. One of our objections is that the new rules will apply not only to women who are British by registration but to women who are British by birth.
Last time we debated these matters, I was speaking, I hope, on behalf of my constituents who are the daughters


of citizens of Pakistan who were born in Pakistan and then obtained British citizenship. I am now speaking on behalf of their sisters who were born in the United Kingdom. If they wish to bring foreign husbands into this country, they will be subjected to the same intolerable level of scrutiny as the Home Secretary proposes for everyone. I should have thought that was a conclusive argument to explain why the Home Secretary is tightening, not relaxing, the rules.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I am puzzled, in the light of the totality of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said previously, why he abstained on the last occasion. If the rules, as originally drafted, were before the House this evening, would he or would he not vote against them?

Mr. Hattersley: I would have abstained and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have done the same. I would not have supported the rules in general because of other items within them of which I disapprove. Those items concern dependent relatives, visitors and the normal methods of investigation. I would not have voted against them because they would then have contained a clear concession. The concession has been removed, because it was hedged about by requirements that I have tried to describe. I am conscious that what I say probably helps the Home Secretary in quelling the Tory rebellion. The truth must be told to the Home Secretary and repeated later to the European Commission of Human Rights when the Home Secretary tries to claim that he is responding to the rules laid down for civilised communities.
What the Home Secretary has done can easily be described. The right hon. Gentleman has recognised the theoretical right of foreign husbands to join British wives in this country. In exercising those rights, he has hedged them about with so many requirements and obligations that, in practice, many men who are genuinely and legitimately married to British women will be kept out of this country. These new, harsher requirements of proof and justification will be extended to women who are British by birth, not simply by registration.
A month ago, when we made the complaints, we were thinking only of women who were British by registration. Now the harsher examination is to be extended. A woman contemplating marriage with a foreign fiance will have to prove that she has already met the man she is to marry. That has been the case for some time. She will have to prove that she intends to live with him. That has also been the case for some time. Now, however, she and her intended husband will also have to prove that the marriage has not been contracted primarily for the purposes of immigration. The hon. Member for Northampton, North assumes that that is invariably the case.
How, I wonder, does one prove what it is not one's intention to do? How does one demonstrate that one is not doing something, or that one is doing something, but not for a certain reason? It is absurd to place such an obligation on anyone who is required to give evidence or proof. When the onus of proof is placed on the applicant and the decision yea or nay is left exclusively to the immigration officer, I have to conclude that time after time genuine marriages will be denied proper union because it will be

impossible for the applicants to prove what they are required to prove, and the immigration officer will therefore rule against them.

Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that an intervention from the hon. Gentleman would be enormously rewarding. [Interruption.] However, since the hon. Gentleman is shouting, we will let him shout standing up.

Mr. Marlow: I know that it pains the right hon. Gentleman to let me intervene. I am grateful to him for so graciously giving way. Does he agree that although it may be difficult for the husband to enter this country, it may be quite easy for the wife to join her husband in his country of origin?

Mr. Hattersley: That may be so, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I are not going to argue about the problems of sexual discrimination. If that is the solution that he urges to our problems, he is conceding, game, set and match, the existence of sexual discrimination, but perhaps that does not bother him.
The onus of proof being what it is, and the requirement of proof being set out as it is by the Home Secretary, many genuine marriages will be prevented from union in the United Kingdom. Conservative Back Benchers, who are so concerned to observe the manifesto commitments on which they fought the election, should remember their commitment to family life. I hope that that meant black family life as well as white family life; Asian family life as well as European family life. Today they are making genuine family life for a large section of the British population a great deal more difficult to achieve.
The second enormity to which I wish to draw the attention of the House concerns the period for which a husband who is allowed to enter this country will be required to wait before his settlement is confirmed. With his normal disingenuity, the Home Secretary said "If one year, why not two? If two years, why not three? If three years, why not five?" We can all say that a period seems reasonable if we do not have to give the reason. Even the Home Secretary must understand, however, that by doubling the waiting period one is doubling the risks and doubling the chance of suffering, as well as increasing the intolerable indignity imposed on the men who live in this semi-world during their probationary years.
I do not believe that this will be a deterrent to applications, because all the evidence suggests that most applicants are genuine. The genuine applicant will not be deterred from applying because of a rule that he will have to go home if he is not married after two years because he believes that he will still be married after that period. Nor will the two-year period deter the bogus applicant. There are very few bogus applicants. The Home Secretary referred to about 150 being sent back after a year—150 out of a total of more than 3,000. That is a trivial number, and it in no way justifies the hardship that will be imposed on the genuine applicants.
I ask the Home Secretary to deal with the question of hardship. In a long debate of this kind, I am sure that the House would gladly give him leave to speak again if he was prepared to answer any of our specific questions.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead referred to the supposition under the previous rules that if the marriage broke down because the wife died the man would


be allowed to remain in this country. Is that supposition to remain? Surely the Home Secretary would not wish to leave any doubt in anyone's mind that if a marriage breaks down simply due to the death of the wife the man would be allowed to remain.
If the Home Secretary cannot answer that question, perhaps he will answer some of the questions about wives and children. So far he has not answered any of them. It is possible that after a man has lived for two years in this country, legally and legitimately, he may have become the father of two children. If, shortly before the two years run out, he does not desert his wife but she deserts him and leaves him with the children, will he be sent home? Surely the Home Secretary can answer that here and now. He should not need time to consider that. Can he not say now that a man in those circumstances will not be sent home? Can he not say, too, that the man will not be sent home if his wife dies?

Mr. Whitelaw: If the man's wife has died, of course he will not be sent back. The same applies, of course, to the other case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Those are not the kind of circumstances to which I referred. I was describing circumstances in which the man deliberately deserts and has no further part in the marriage.

Mr. Hattersley: We are making progress. We have categorical answers to two questions. Anyone who has debated with the Home Secretary for two years, as I have, will be thankful at least for that. I concede at once that his answers were humane and proper, and I rejoice and genuinely thank him for giving them, but that is only the beginning of the problem.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the Home Secretary put that into the legislation? Why does it not say that the rules will apply only when the husband is, as it were, the guilty party and not when he is the innocent party? Indeed, are we to return to the concept of blame in divorce and separation?

Mr. Hattersley: I accept that it would be infinitely better if it were written into the rules. Nevertheless, having persuaded the Home Secretary to put those two propositions on record, I understand the House and every hon. Member to believe, as I do, that not one man in the circumstances that I have described will be sent away from this country. If we have achieved nothing else, we have clarified and made progress on those two points. The Home Secretary will live with that—and rightly so—for as long as he remains Home Secretary.
The two-year period, however, is not my principal concern in terms of the effect on the applicant. As most applicants are genuine, they will assume that they will remain married for the two years and will therefore not be prevented from applying. I am concerned about refusal of entry based on a requirement to produce unobtainable evidence and the discretion being left entirely in the hands of the immigration officer while the applicant has the absolute duty to prove the case. That cannot be right. The rules have been changed in the past five weeks for one simple reason. The Government pretend that it is to avoid evasion but no one ever produces any evidence of evasion. There are many allegations and smears are spread across the immigrant population and their families, but no evidence is produced. The best figure that we have obtained in the House during the past two years is that 150 men were sent back because their marriages broke down

within a year. That is 150 men out of more than 3,000. Many of those are not cases of intentional evasion; they concern men who entered into marriage in the genuine belief that it would continue, but who found, to their surprise, that it collapsed after they arrived. The idea of a calculated policy of trying to enter the country through marriage is patent nonsense. Nobody here this evening—

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) will claim that he knows of cases where money has changed hands, of bribery and corruption. I hope that he will make such claims outside the House, but the evidence of wholesale evasion does not exist.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will not forget that the Select Committee that investigated the matter and reported in March 1978 expressed the view that money was changing hands.

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the figures. The only figure that the House has been given is 150 sent back out of 3,000. That does not substantiate the view that mass evasion exist.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman is displaying more ignorance than usual. Evidence does exist. He is living in a fool's paradise. He need only pick up newspapers today in Bombay to see advertisements offering money for such marriages. Before he makes accusations, the right hon. Gentleman should make certain of his facts.

Mr. Hattersley: There are two answers to the hon. Gentleman's intervention that I made in the previous debate on the subject, although I cannot remember whether he was present. The truth is that there are very few such marriages these days. If the hon. Gentleman believes the Home Secretary, he will find that he confirms that. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, he will live in a multiracial society for the rest of his life and he must learn to distinguish between a bogus and an arranged marriage. The two things are not the same. As I understand the Home Secretary, it is not his wish to prevent genuine arranged marriages. I am delighted to see that he concedes that.
If the Home Secretary made a case at all this evening, it is that the reason for the change in immigration rules between 11 November and now is to ensure that the evasion that cannot be quantified does not take place. The Opposition find it impossible to believe that that is the reason for the changes and the hardening of policy. The true reason is that the Home Secretary wishes to placate Back-Bench Members, who will despise him no less because he has capitulated to them. The Home Secretary wishes to take into the Lobby with him those whose views on the matter are—to give him credit—completely different from his. Those Back-Bench Members cannot reconcile allowing even a small additional number of immigrants into this country. To capitulate to those hon. Members is discreditable. To do it in such a way—to argue that the regulations are more moderate and reasonable but then to argue in the next paragraph that, because of the qualifications placed on the regulations, they are more draconian and more easily enforceable is the worst form of double talk that gives politicians a bad name.
We propose to vote against such squalid regulations and to change them as soon as we have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Edward Gardner: There is no more delicate or dangerous ground that a Home Secretary can traverse than that which we are considering tonight—a change in the immigration rules. If ever Britain has the misfortune to discover its new Home Secretary in the identity of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), he will also find how difficult it is to deal with such matters in practice.
Each Home Secretary who has had to apply his mind to the problem has come up against what appear at times to be insuperable difficulties. In 1969, the Labour Government introduced an absolute ban on all husbands and fiancés coming from abroad to join women in Britain. In 1974, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), when he was Home Secretary, removed that ban. I make no comment on that except to say that when the Conservative Party considered the problem in 1979 before the general election, it promised in its manifesto to restore the ban. The promise was fulfilled in 1980 with the rules that are now in force. It was not an absolute ban like the 1969 Labour ban, but it was qualified. Only women born in Britain or who had one parent who was born in Britain, could bring in husbands or fiancés from abroad.
Tonight we are considering a new set of immigration rules that allow all women who are British citizens, as they will be created on 1 January next year by the British Nationality Act 1981, to bring into Britain their husbands and fiancés, subject to conditions that are much stricter than those imposed in the 1980 rules.
Some of my hon. Friends are worried whether the new rules break the promise that was made before the 1979 general election. I understand my hon. Friends' anxieties when they examine that promise and reflect upon the answer to the question. It would appear, prima facie, that the promise that we made in 1979 has been breached. We must face that fact. If those who are dissatisfied rely on the letter of the promise made, perhaps they have something to sustain their doubts about the new rules. If that were the only consideration that we must take into account, many more Conservative Members would be troubled. However, it is not the only consideration. Another consideration is the British Nationality Act 1981 that comes into force on 1 January next year.
The House will remember that in 1977 the Labour Party produced a Green Paper on British nationality law. That Green Paper stated that the nationality law, as it was founded on the British Nationality Act 1948, was in a state of confusion, that it had failed to reflect the changes in the Commonwealth and to identify those people who had the right to belong to this country, and who say so, to leave this country and return without hindrance.
One of the most significant things said in the Green Paper was that the law under the British Nationality Act 1948 provided no base for solving immigration problems by relating them to citizenship. A study group set up by the Conservative Party to look at the law of nationality came to the conclusion just before the 1979 election that the nationality laws were confused and that there was no

means of creating a base in citizenship to solve the immigration problems. We made a promise in the 1979 manifesto that we would introduce a new nationality law.
I do not believe that any political party could constitutionally make a more important promise. I believe that the Act which was the fulfilment of that promise is perhaps the most important Act that has passed through Parliament this century. The Act has two main functions. One is to create a citizenship which will enable us all without difficulty and with certainty to identify ourselves as British citizens. At the moment we are not British citizens. No one is entitled to call himself a British citizen. We are all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as our passports say, although most of us have nothing to do with the colonies. When the new Act comes into force on 1 January 1983 we shall be for the first time British citizens.
When that happens there will be only one class of British citizen. British citizens will not be divided into citizens who are more equal than others. They will all be British citizens, as we said in our manifesto.
If we are to have the new Act, and the benefits that come from it, we must have new immigration rules to match. There cannot be one without the other. One cannot have one's cake and eat it, as some people would like. The spirit of the promise that we made in 1979 shows that there is no difficulty in accepting the rules as they are before the House. I say that for two reasons. First, the rules are far tougher than those we introduced in 1980. Apparently, one of the reasons why the Opposition are voting against them tonight is because of their toughness. During the debate, one has heard from behind or a little to the left, geograpically, that the rules are not tough enough or that they will not work. The Opposition believe that they will work too well and too harshly.
The group of British-born women or women who have one parent born here will increase almost daily. The figures are not easy to come by and if one obtains them they are not easy to analyse. But the group must incease until it becomes nearly as great as the new group of women who are British citizens.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that there will be more and more people of Asian or other Commonwealth extraction in this country who are born here?

Mr. Gardner: Yes.
I come to the benefits of the British Nationality Act. We need to control and reduce the number of immigrants coming here. I gained the impression that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wished to open the gates. He said that he was speaking for his constituents, but I doubt whether people, for example, from the Indian subcontinent who have settled here and probably become citizens wish to have their position undermined by an uncontrolled flood of people coming here.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman demeans himself by making that allegation. What he says is a flagrant misinterpretation of my speech tonight and all my speeches over the past two years inside and outside the House. It is also a flagrant misinterpretation of Labour Party policy.

Mr. Gardner: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman's view. I am pleased to hear that it is not his view. But he seems to say that he wants more immigrants to come here.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was a member of an Administration that granted two amnesties for illegal immigrants. By definition, that allows in many extra immigrants. The measure probably caused more anxiety among the immigrant population than among the indigenous population.

Mr. Gardner: I shall not lose the thread of my argument by following that point, however important.
Inevitably the British Nationality Act will reduce the number of immigrants coming into the country.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Gardner: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. I know that this is something that the hon. Gentleman does not like; nor does his party find it greatly attractive. The British Nationality Act has abandoned the doctrine of jus soli, which means that from 1 January there will be no automatic acquisition of British nationality through birth. That must have its effect eventually and potentially on the number of immigrants who will be in this country. That must be right.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: How many?

Mr. Gardner: How long is a piece of string? One cannot begin to quantify that. It is obvious that it must be a considerable number. Far more people will be kept out on that basis than will be let in under the new rules that we are considering. Furthermore, the British Nationality Act enables one to identify far more easily and with more certainty who is a British citizen and who is not, which should help.
It is not fully realised and has never been fully understood that the old law under the 1948 Act, to which we will say goodbye on 1 January, has been responsible for creating the last count of 950 million British subjects throughout the world. The 1948 Act equates the meaning of "British subject" with "Commonwealth citizen". I do not wish to make a false point or to exaggerate, but there can be no doubt that of those 950 million people who can now claim to be British subjects under the present law, there must be many—I could not say how many—who believe that they have, however remotely and tenuously, a claim to come here and ultimately to claim citizenship of this country. There must be many millions who do not even know they are British subjects. That law is antiquated and nonsensical. Of course, that is only one of the reasons why we shall be glad to be rid of it on 1 January.
The Opposition, in voting, as they say they will, against the rules, and any Conservative Member who joins them, will defy the laws of logic by voting against something that they want. I understand that the Opposition want wider rules to allow in more immigrants more easily. Conservative Members want tough and effective safeguards. If they vote against the rules they will vote against both those objectives. If the recent leader in The Times is correct—I think it is—it comes to this: we shall have a new British Nationality Act that creates one form of citizen. Immediately we vote against the rule, we are in danger of creating two types of citizen.

Mr. Marlow: I am following my hon. and learned Friend's argument carefully. I agree with much of it. He said that we made a manifesto commitment about ending the concession. He has also said that we have introduced a new British Nationality Act and that the consequences are that we should have just the one sort of citizen. If we had said in our manifesto that we would suspend the concession made by the Labour Party until we had a new British Nationality Act, many of my colleagues would have gone along with the rules. However, we made a specific commitment that we would end that concession for all time. That overrides the consequences of the Act.

Mr. Gardner: It was obvious that what we did in the 1980 rules was done under the old nationality rules. My hon. Friend knew that, and presumably everyone knew it. Under what law was it done, if not under the old law? We now have a new law.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Gardner: Perhaps I might finish this point. If we have a new law, we must have new rules to go with it.

Mr. Budgen: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He said a moment ago that under the British Nationality Act there is now to be only one form of British citizen. However, I am sure he realises that there are to be British citizens, British dependent territories citizens, and British overseas citizens. There are also to be persons settled in this country. Surely the answer is that there has been such a history of various waves of immigration into this country, and we have had such a variety of relationships with other countries, that it is not possible to have only one form of citizenship.

Mr. Gardner: If I may say so, with great respect, my hon. Friend is scraping the barrel. He knows full well that the citizenship to which I am referring is citizenship of this country, not of other countries. I am talking exclusively about British citizenship as it affects this country, and of course the rules are linked with that citizenship.
Finally, I come back to the recent leader in the The Times. What is being done, in voting against the rules tonight, is logically absurd and socially pernicious.

Miss Sheila Wright: When the debate started we were diverted to the question whether the European Court of Human Rights had any right to interfere in the domestic legislation of this country. I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) appeared to accept that diversion, and even to elaborate on it, because I do not believe that we should concentrate on that matter tonight. I am not particularly worried about what the European Court has said on this matter. I am worried about what this House will do, what this House will express, and its opinion about how we in this country, in our legislation, should treat our own citizens. I am worried about justice, equity and the equal treatment of citizens in this country by this House. I am not bothered about what comes from outside.
There are two major points of principle. First, we are discussing whether British citizens will be treated equally, regardless of sex or colour. Secondly, we are discussing whether, to pander to the unpleasant, xenophobic and sexist prejudices of a few hon. Members, we are to agree to a change in rules which will be oppressive, intolerable


and incapable of any objective assessment. That is what is put to us today in the rules, as outlined in this paper, "Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules".
On the first point, the Government are making it quite clear that they still intend to treat a small minority of citizens in this country, the small minority that is both female and black, differently from the rest of the community, and they are prepared to justify that. On that, they will again lose when the matter goes back to the European Court.
In order to pander to only a comparatively few hon. Members we shall bring in rules which will place the burden of proof on the applicant. I do not know how there will be any objective assessment. How will someone who is applying to marry a British inhabitant prove—that is the operative word—that he is not doing it for the primary purpose of immigration? A prejudiced immigration or entry certificate officer, like a few hon. Members, will say that somebody from a different society who has an arranged marriage—I do not hold a brief for arranged marriages but I am not arrogant enough to say that a different society is necessarily a worse one—has it for the primary purpose of immigration. It can easily be seen how people who believe that an arranged marriage is unacceptable would think that it must be for some reason other than a desire to marry that person. There could easily be additional hardship and oppression on people applying to come to Britain.
I shall not pretend—I do not think any hon. Member would—that there are not cases where individuals come into Britain with no intention of a marriage subsisting. There are always people who will operate rules to their advantage. There will always be white, black or brown people who bend the rules to their advantage. There will always be a small proportion of immigrant men who are prepared to exploit a small proportion of women whom they want to marry. However, that does not mean that the House has the moral right to say that the great majority of those who are applying to join the women whom they want to marry or those who are joining women to whom they are already married are not doing so genuinely. Such people already have an intolerable and oppressive weight to bear.
The House should remember that there is a small minority of British citizens who are both black and women who are today watching to see whether the House is prepared to treat them as equal citizens regardless of their sex and colour.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Miss Wright) criticised some of the safeguards in the revised immigration rules. I share some of those criticisms and shall come to them in due course.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that he will reply to the debate tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]
I wish to explain to the House why I signed the motion in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), and why I intend, with regret, to vote against the Government tonight. I did so as a sign of encouragement.
After all, this is the first recorded act of the Liberal Party to oppose a measure the effect of which is to increase immigration from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. I also signed the right hon. Gentleman's motion because, if carried, it will be incontrovertibly effective, under section 3(2) of the 1971 Act, in preventing the rules from taking effect on 1 January 1983. I did not sign the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), because there is an element of doubt in my mind about whether it will achieve its aim.
Much has been said tonight about manifesto commitments. I shall vote against the rules, because our party has made promises in successive manifestos, most notably in 1970 and in 1979, and they have all worn rather thin. I have begun to wonder whether anyone will believe us next time. In 1970 we said that
there will be no further large-scale permanent immigration from the new Commonwealth.
Since then more than 560,000 immigrants from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan have entered this country legally. Since our manifesto commitment in 1979 more than 100,000 immigrants have entered Britain legally. Such is the betrayal of public confidence and faith.
Some of my hon. Friends are keen to suggest that primary immigration from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan has all but ended. In our last debate on the rules, my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) said:
Immigration from the Indian subcontinent is rapidly coming to an end … primary immigration from the Indian subcontinent is, in effect, over."—[Official Report, 11 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 727.]
I know that my hon. Friend holds an important position on the specialist Sub-Committee of one of our Select Committees, and therefore we listen carefully to his words, but I wonder whether he was correct.
That statement would be true but for the fact that 40 per cent. of the present figures are accounted for by non-dependants. It would be true but for the fact—as the editorial in "Population Trends No. 30" published only yesterday reveals—that although immigration in 1981 continued to decline from most old and new Commonwealth countries, there was
a marked increase in immigration from Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka"—
while—
emigration to new Commonwealth countries fell by 6,000.
That statement would be true but for the fact that the 1982 third quarter figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for acceptances for settlement on the removal of the time limit record an increase on the 1981 figures from 9,920 to 10,510 for citizens of the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. Within that figure there is a recorded increase for Pakistan from 1,820 to 2,300. Those immigrants all fall into categories in which the Home Secretary has greater use of his discretion.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are even keener to proffer the idea that immigration is down to a trickle. Indeed, the media seem to think the same. That would be true but for the fact that immigration continues from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan at the rate of 30,000 a year, even in 1982. In 1973, the last full year of the previous Conservative Administration, a figure of 32,247 was recorded. This year we are claiming credit because the figure might be just under 30,000, but we are


not sure. That is not a significant achievement or an achievement of which we can be proud in view of the manifesto commitments and promises made in 1979.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's figures and statistics. Even taking them at their worst, they represent a small proportion of the population of Britain. Small numbers of people, relatively speaking, are coming in. Having given us a catalogue of numbers, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is wrong with this number of people coming into Britain? Are they bad citizens? Do they not contribute to the country? What is wrong?

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) speaks for a Scottish constituency which has still to feel the full impact of the immigration which has hit the inner cities of England. It is a question of numbers. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to tell his constituents that it is not unreasonable to have taken 560,000 people from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan since 1970, he should talk to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies which have been seriously affected by this problem. In saying that I make no criticism of any individual immigrant from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. If I had been in their position I, too, would probably have come to Britain. The blame rests not with the immigrants nor with the indigenous community, which has been incredibly tolerant. The criticism is of successive politicians of both parties during the past 30 years. That is where the criticism should correctly remain.
I do not share the view of some of my hon. Friends that somehow immigration from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan will end. A large resident ethnic community here will act as a magnet for further immigration far into the future. Without a change in the law with regard to dependants, that prospect is inevitable. Although I would vote for such an amendment to the law, given that immigrants can be reunited in their own countries as well as in the United Kingdom, unfortunately I do not see such a change at the moment commending the support of Parliament.
The growth of the new Commonwealth and Pakistan population is ever upwards, reinforced by natural increase to a greater degree as each year passes—more than 100,000 in 1981. About 2,500 to 3,000 more immigrants, as proposed, plus dependants, might seem inconsequential to Members on the Opposition Benches and perhaps to some Members on the Conservative Benches, but if the rules increased the inflow by one, I should feel obliged to vote against them.
Much has been said about the safeguards. In response to the pressure, trite and meaningless safeguards may fool some right hon. and hon. Members, but I doubt whether they will impress the ordinary voter, especially in marginal inner city constituencies.
I believe that we see in the safeguards the classic example of a multiracial society leading towards authoritarian rules and regulations and an over-mighty Government. Anxious as ever to ensure the support of right hon. and hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has instead ensured that he will tread a bed of thorns, for so draconian, so authoritarian, so ill-considered and so blatantly discriminatory are these safeguards that he will encounter the wrath, condemnation and howls of anguish of every civil rights and women's

group that is going. Moreover, he will doubtless find himself in the dock of the European Court of Human Rights still more often in future than he has in the past.
It is one thing to be liberal or to be conservative in the tightness of controls—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) talked about toughness—and quite another to be unfair and unjust, and we shall reap the consequences of these temporary expediencies.
At a time when we are facing a breakdown of law, order and authority, it is hardly helpful to the encouragement of good race relations to put still greater strain on the tensions that are to be found in our society, especially in inner city areas where immigrant communities are concentrated.
I do not believe that these rules have the support of the British people. They are demonstrably detrimental to British interests. They will undermine our self-confidence and our identity. They are a disgrace, and the betrayal of our promises is a greater disgrace. Such disgrace deserves defeat.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The major contribution of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) shows the depth of bigotry on Conservative Benches which has brought about the changes in the immigration rules that we are debating.

Sir William Clark: The hon. Gentleman is a good one at that.

Mr. Lyon: The history is worth recalling and I shall recall it for the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), who is speaking from a sedentary position. In 1968 the Home Secretary of the day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), showed his concern that there was an upsurge of new husbands coming into the country. The figure was 1,676, and about 1,500 came from India. On that basis my right hon. Friend changed the then rules to stop men, coming into the country for marriage save in the most exceptional circumstances, and the immigration appeals tribunals made it pretty certain that those circumstances were very restricted. As a result, from 1969 to 1974 practically no husbands came into the country.
When the Labour Government took office in 1974 there was a massive campaign to get them to reverse the rules. The major part of the concern was expressed by women who were white who wanted to marry men who were white. When we changed the rules, we recognised that though that would be a solace to them there was bound to be an increase in migration from the Indian subcontinent. We warned expressly that that would be so.
When we changed the rules, the Conservative Party did not even trouble to pray against the change. There was no vote or debate because the Conservative Party supported to the full the campaign by women around the country. Had the Tories wanted to pray against the rules, perhaps the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) might have stirred himself to pray, but he did not. The rules went through without opposition, largely because almost every hon. Member thought that the only decent, civilised thing to do was to allow a man to live with his wife wherever the couple wished to live—in the place where the man was born, where the woman was born or in some other place, for example, this country if they had the right of entry.
When we came to that conclusion, I was careful to point out, because I could see what was coming, that there might be a time when we would find the odd case of persons who came here for the purpose of migration and married in a bogus marriage. I said:
The real test for us as a civilised community is whether we can stand up to the kind of criticism that would then be voiced. If we believed that a change was right and if, in all the circumstances, we concluded that it should take place, a few bad cases should not change our view about the issue on principle, and we would have to be able to stand before our constituents and explain the situation if they wanted us to change the rules back because of one or two bad cases".—[Official Report, 21 June 1974; Vol. 875, c. 940.]
I then got the sack. Within two years of that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) changed the rules on the basis of those few bad cases.
Even today, when the Administration is trying hard to be stricter than any other Administration about these matters, it can still only find about 150 cases to send back, out of a possible 5,000 men who came here through marriage last year. In those circumstances, it is absurd to argue that because of that number of possible bogus marriages we should change the rules yet again. Nevertheless, The Conservative Party blindly made that promise before the previous general election and tried to carry it out even though there were one or two other proposals in the Home Secretary's Leicester speech that the Government did not quite carry out. It would not be the only part of that speech that the Home Secretary has not carried through, and it would have been easy for him when he came into office and saw reality not to have carried this through. However, the Government did so.
I did not think that the Government could change the rules because I did not think that they could take on the white women's lobby that had so stirred itself in 1974. However, the Government were better than I could have thought. They are not afraid of a bit of racism here and there. They changed the rules so that white women could get their husbands in, but not black or brown women.
As long as the woman here was born here, or was a child of a person born here, the Government were prepared to face any charge of racism. They said that they had justification, but when we on the Select Committee examined the whole question, the Home Office was clear that it could not justify its discrimination although it was clear that there was discrimination.
The moment that the cases went to the European Commission of Human Rights, they were accepted prima facie and the result was that the Home Secretary began to change tack. He has now decided that he will allow couples to come here if the woman is a British citizen.
As the Home Secretary implied, the original rule could not have lasted very long anyway because there would always come a time when most or the women wanting to marry would be women who were born here. The British citizenship provision was simply a step back from that position. I should have been willing to accept that and not to have demurred if British citizenship would mean that most, if not all, of the women who wanted to bring in a husband would be allowed to, even subject to the rather stiffer tests included in the 1981 change of rules. That is not the position, and it is for that reason that the Labour

Opposition propose to vote against these rules, even though we may be joined by Conservative Members who take an entirely different view of the rules.
We are doing so for two main reasons. First, if one looks at the migration figures for marriage since 1974, it is perfectly clear that initially half the men coming in were white. There was a reduction in that figure over time, because a backlog had built up from 1969 to 1974. Now, roughly half the men who come here for marriage come from the Indian subcontinent, and most of those come from India. Last year, the figure was about 1,100 out of a total of 2,100 who came from the Indian subcontinent. A further 3,050 came from the New Commonwealth and about 2,480 came from other countries.
If we simply accept the rule about citizenship, many of those Indian fiancés would not be allowed to come. It is not clear what proportion of Indian citizens have taken British citizenship. Most of the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have, but Indian men would lost their Indian citizenship if they did so. I understand that a considerable number have not taken British citizenship, as a result of which their children would fail if those children had not acquired British citizenship, and perhaps they have not done so.
Secondly, the rules introduced by the Government in 1981, reinforced by the new rules that they are now introducing, are aimed specifically at arranged marriages in the custom of the Indian subcontinent. On this subject, I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Miss Wright), who suggested that we should perhaps frown on the practice of the arranged marriage. There are problems with the arranged marriage, and it creates some tension in some parts of the Indian community. The Indian community must consider that matter carefully. However, never in our history have we tried in any way by Government decree to change the custom and cultural pattern of any group of migrants coming into this country. We did not do so with the Jews from Eastern Europe who also used the arranged marriage system, and I do not think that we should do so now.
This will probably change, but at a pace dictated by the people themselves and not by any Government decree. Therefore, I am totally opposed to immigration rules that are simply designed to change the cultural pattern of the Indian subcontinent.
Some of those rules were introduced in 1981 and have been added to. The first rule is that the parties should have met. It may be inconceivable to people from the West that there should be marriage between parties who have not met. Nevertheless, such marriages have been commonplace in the Indian subcontinent. My experience from when I investigated the subject in 1974 was that they were successful. The divorce rate there was much lower than in the West. That is precisely why it is inadvisable for us to judge whether such marriages are unwise. Nevertheless, because the rule has been passed, there are cases—it is difficult to say how many—when refusals are made to applicants from India and Pakistan on that basis alone.
When he is questioned on the subject, the Minister of State says that a couple can meet quite easily if they just make a visit. The difficulty of making a visit is that it is expensive, especially in these straitened times when unemployment is high, especially among minority communities. It is difficult to make a visit and to hold a marriage ceremony.
The second part of the rules was that the marriage should not have been terminated within 12 months. When that original proviso was made by the Labour Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said that it would never be intended to send anyone whose marriage had broken down naturally back to their country of origin if there was no question of the marriage being bogus and arranged purely for entry to Britain. Nevertheless, the immigration tribunal interpreted that provision quite differently. It said that it did not matter why the couple were no longer living together but that if they were not living together at the end of 12 months it was right that they should be sent back. They are being sent out in increasing numbers.
Today, the Home Secretary said that there is no difference between one year and two in that respect. On the contrary, there is a doubling of the time in which a marriage may naturally break down. Marriages can and do break down—it is becoming increasingly frequent. In those circumstances, the Home Secretary says that there is no reason why the people concerned should not go back to their country of origin. The reply is that the person has invested more than money in coming to Britain. He has invested emotionally in his expectations of coming to Britain, of beginning a life here, of finding a job and of settling down. If the marriage then breaks down, he will find that on the basis of that marriage breaking down he is to be sent back to his country of origin where he must try to pick up his life again. I have always believed that that was intolerable.
The worst proviso is that about the burden of proof. It seems a small change to say first, that if an applicant wishes to come to Britain, it is for the immigration officer to show on the balance of probabilities that he is within one of the exceptions, and then to say that the onus is on the applicant to prove that he is not within one of the exceptions. That may seem a small change but it is crucial. The burden of proof is what the argument is all about once a person gets in front of the desk of the immigration or the entry certificate officer. That is why, when I was a Minister, I tried to get entry certificate officers to apply the rule—which is the rule of English law—that the burden of proof should be the burden of the balance of probabilities.
It was that, more than anything else, that caused the furore about my visit to the subcontinent which led to a report about the visit being made by some now unknown Foreign Office official that was leaked by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The truth is that what had upset the entry certificate officers was reminding them that it was the balance of probabilities that had to apply, not the criminal standard of proof.

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of that interesting period. Has he made any calculation of how many extra entrants came into this country as a result of the direction that he gave to the immigration officials?

Mr. Lyon: I shall go over the figures in a moment. I wish to deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Basildon. The burden of proof and the balance of probabilities are crucial to any assessment whether an applicant is going to get in. It is an immense change to put the burden of proof on the applicant. It is far worse than any other factor introduced into the debate. It is much

more likely to lead to a reduction in the number of people who can come. That may please some Conservative Members. It does not please me.
The reason is not that the figures are enormous or that I wish to open the gates wide. The figures have never been enormous. The highest figure occurred in the year immediately following the change of rules when there was something of a pent-up dam and some people took the opportunity to come. The figure was 8,100 from all over the world and 4,496 from the new Commonwealth. The figure dropped to about 3,050 on the last occasion.
The Minister of State told the Select Committee that the figure of 3,050 still consisted roughly of about 80 per cent. of people who were coming under the old rules and who had been delayed in the queue. The other 20 per cent. were new people who had applied since the change of rules in 1981. If that is so, about 700 came under the rules invented by this Government. The Home Secretary has pointed to about 600 who were refused entry in the last year. This means that under the rules introduced in 1981, 700 were allowed to come in and 600 were refused entry. That is the balance on which we are looking for the future.
If we are to continue with the rules invented by this Government, the likelihood is that 50 per cent. of cases will be refused. If that is the case, it is not something that I want to accept. If we were to succeed in defeating the rules tonight, there would be some women who are British citizens, although not born here, who would not then be able to bring in their husbands and who might say: "Why have you done this to me?" The answer is simple.
If we defeat the rules tonight, the Government cannot simply stand there. There is no way in which the Government can simply allow themselves to go on applying the existing rules. There has to be a concession to someone. It has to be a concession either to Conservative Members or to the Opposition. I believe that the concession will be to us. The pressure on the Government was not the British Nationality Act, which could have changed the Immigration Act 1971 and made the position for women exactly the same as that for men. It did not do so because the Government were not interested in making that change. The Government knew at the time the British Nationality Act was going through the House—the Opposition told them so—that it would cause difficulties for their rules on fiancés. The pressure comes from the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr. Budgen: That is denied.

Mr. Lyon: I know it is denied. But the fact is, that the Government are bound by it unless they wish to withdraw from it. Certainly it must apply because cases have already been taken up under it.
If the Government withdrew from the convention, as they could, little ladies from Salisbury could not bring cases about comprehensive schooling and people from power stations could not use it to challenge closed shop rules, which would certainly upset Conservative Members. Getting out of the convention is not so easy as they imagine. One has to take the rough with the smooth. The rough part for the hon. Member for Basildon is that we cannot get out of our obligation on this. The Select Committee made it perfectly plain, and Lord Scarman and the other witnesses made it plain to the Select Committee that the rules breach the European convention.
The rules breach the convention not only in relation to citizen wives but in relation to settled wives, because


under the convention "national" means someone who is settled here. Significantly, of the three cases so far brought and accepted as being within the jurisdiction of the convention, two were citizen wives and one was a settled wife. The Commission has not suggested that there is any difference between the two. The Home Secretary has conceded the case of the citizen wife, but not that of the settled wife, so even if the Government succeeded in getting the rules through the House they would have to come back to make the concession in relation to settled wives.
The Government might just as well face the situation now. About a dozen Conservative Members would like to be minor Enoch Powells—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. They would like to be minor versions of the right hon. Member for Down, South. I was thinking more of the right hon. Gentleman's public persona than of his position in the House. That is the only opposition that the Government have to take on. The rest of us are of one mind. We believe that women who are settled here should be allowed to bring in their husbands.
The numbers involved are minuscule by comparison with the number of people who emigrate every year. In only two years since 1955 have more people entered than left this country. Migration has not caused the problems suggested by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Basildon should note the highest figures for immigration from the new Commonwealth since 1973. In 1972 the figures were much higher, but the hon. Member for Basildon insists on giving the 1973 figures because he fails to mention what happened in Uganda. In that year, the Government restricted the number of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent in order to take the people from Uganda.
Taking the whole picture, the figures peaked in 1976 and since then have steadily fallen because people can come here only if they have an entitlement under the rules, and the rules are now extremely restrictive. There were two major areas of concession. The first concerned the East African Asians, most of whom have now come—apart from the 20,000 or perhaps only 15,000 living on the Indian subcontinent, on whom the Select Committee recently reported, and they will not be coming.
The second concession concerns the wives and children of men who were settled here a very long time ago. Most of those have come already. The people from India have come, most of those from Pakistan have come and most of those from Bangladesh are now here. The hon. Member for Basildon shakes his head. He had better read the Select Committee report and study the figures.
The only remaining area of migration is that of husbands and wives, and twice as many women as men enter Britain for marriage. Any civilised country would allow a man or a woman to live there if one of its nationals wished to marry and to bring in a husband or wife. As civilised countries do that, we condemn the Soviet Union for not doing it. But the Government are playing the tactics of the Soviet Union by trying to keep out husbands whom they do not like simply because of their colour.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary began his speech this evening, he talked of the difficulty that he faced when drafting the

rules. The House should be conscious of the great difficulty that any Home Secretary faces when he drafts such rules, because he must try to accommodate two not wholly compatible considerations. The first consideration is the need to control the flow of immigration into Britain and thus to calm public anxiety. That is perfectly proper. The second consideration is the vital need to ensure that British citizens' rights are protected. Those incompatible considerations inevitably bring about some tension, which is at its highest when we talk about fiancés and husbands.
I have had the pleasure on many previous occasions, and to some extent tonight, of hearing the arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends who dislike the rules. I understand and entirely sympathise with many of their arguments, but I do not agree with them. I shall try to define my right hon. and hon. Friends' criticisms of the rules. First, they say that the rules are insufficiently tough. Then they say that the rules are unenforceable and that they will take us back to the pre-1979 position, representing a departure from the Conservative Party manifesto of 1979. In every respect, those arguments—however eloquently argued—are wrong.
The first assertion—that the rules, if approved, will take us back to the 1979 position—is wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] That argument has been advanced frequently by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

Mr. Stanbrook: I have never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend misunderstands the effect of what he has been saying. One criticism of the rules is that they take us back to the 1979 position and that they represent a departure from the Conservative Party manifesto. That is a false argument.

Mr. Budgen: No, no, no.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, yes, yes. Before the 1979 general election, women settled in the United Kingdom, irrespective of citizenship and subject to precious few safeguards, and had a right to introduce husbands and fiancés into the United Kingdom. That position has changed radically, because the rules brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary make it clear that the right depends upon the possession of British citizenship. Furthermore, the right is sheltered by safeguards that are enforceable and correct. Therefore, to suggest that we are simply restoring the status quo ante is not correct.
The second point that is being made by my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the rules represent some departure from the Conservative manifesto.

Mr. Budgen: It does.

Mr. Hogg: No, I do not believe that it does. It is an illusion, and I shall explain why.

Mr. Budgen: Thank you very much, Sir.

Mr. Hogg: I am always gracious to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). He is not always gracious to me, but we do our best to be friendly. I am sure that on this occasion he will listen to a contrary view with his customary courtesy.
In the Conservative manifesto of 1979 we said that we would withdraw the concession extended to husbands and fiancés in 1974. That is precisely what we have done. True, we have left the right, but it is a wholly different


right. It is a right which depends upon the possession of British citizenship, and, furthermore, it is an entitlement hedged by safeguards. Let me take the argument a little further.

Sir William Clark: Do.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad to hear the interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), because these are points that he would do well to consider.

Sir William Clark: I am listening, as is everyone, with bated breath to the words of wisdom from my hon. Friend. May I suggest to him that arrogance does not, in fact, win arguments. In no circumstances can one ever advance the argument that the new rules conform to the Conservative manifesto pledge.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend did not note or understand the first point that I made. We have given the right to British citizens. That is quite different and distinct from the position that existed in 1979.
I take it further than that. The manifesto contained two other commitments that hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friends, should bear in mind, in that we said, first, that we would protect the position of British citizens before the law, and, secondly, that we would introduce a British Nationality Act.
A British Nationality Act having been introduced, it is inevitable that we must consider all relevant legislation in the context of that Act. It would be wholly inconsistent to leave in existence a legal framework which is incompatible with that Act. The other arguments that have been put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends are—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend. He has had ample opportunity in this debate, in the press, and on television and in previous debates, and why should he not, to express his views. He must for the moment allow me to continue.
It is argued by my right hon. and hon. Friends who disagree with them that the rules are unsufficiently tough and unenforceable. However, I have to remind myself, and my hon. Friends will wish to remind themselves, that we are talking about our daughters' rights. The rules apply to everyone. They apply to British citizens resident in this country. That includes my daughter.
When I ask myself, in all conscience, whether I can say that the provisions in the rules, as they touch on my daughter, are insufficiently tough, I reject the proposition.

Mr. Marlow: They are too tough.

Mr. Hogg: That is an argument to which I shall come in a moment. The first proposition is that they are insufficiently tough, and will admit too many people.

Mr. Marlow: It is the categories that let in too many people.

Mr. Hogg: I shall come to that also in a moment, but my hon. Friend must learn that he does not improve his argument by making fairly intelligible observations from a sedentary position. I might add that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) never improves his argument from a standing position either.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend let me try?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend and I have probably spent more time in the Chamber together than any other two hon. Members. I know exactly what he is like. I shall not give way at this juncture.
The criteria are enforceable. Immigration officers are being asked to make a judgment—a finding of fact. That is the process that justices, Revenue officials, Customs officers, policemen and DHSS officials have to make all the time. It is not essentially difficult. If they get it wrong, there is a right of appeal.

Mr. Wilkinson: If my hon. Friend had sat in on an interrogation conducted by an entry certificate officer in one of the missions of Her Majesty overseas he would know how exceedingly difficult it is to adjudicate on the motivation and purpose of entry.

Mr. Hogg: I have not sat in on such a tribunal, but I have frequently appeared in appeal tribunals where precisely the same judgment is required.
The criteria are enforceable, but that consideration is not my chief objection to my hon. Friends' position. I have great respect and, in many cases, affection for my hon. Friends with whom I disagree on this point, but I ask myself whether their primary objective is acceptable. I start from the premise that no hon. Member would wish to tell his daughter that she did not have the right to bring into the United Kingdom a husband or fiancé of her choice. Can we make a distinction between a Miss Hogg and a Miss Patel? That question is at the core of the argument. If I assert that my daughter should have a right to bring into the United Kingdom a person of her choice, how can I in all conscience deny exactly the same right to another female British citizen born and resident in the United Kingdom who happens to be called Miss Patel?

Mr. Marlow: That is not what is suggested.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, it is. If I acceded to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, I should be making a distinction between female citizens born in the United Kingdom and female British citizens born outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marlow: That is different.

Mr. Hogg: No, it is not. If I accepted the argument, I should be making a fundamental distinction which I would have to say was expressed in terms of colour. I will not do it. If a party argues that, in all conscience, it is departing from the traditions of the Conservative Party.
I hope that my hon. Friends consider carefully where they stand before they vote against the rules.

Mr. Marlow: What do the people think?

Mr. Hogg: I am coming to what the people think. It is of critical importance when I deal with the Opposition's argument. Although I do not have much hope at persuading many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall do my best and I hope that we shall join together in friendly discussion—

Sir William Clark: That is not good enough.

Mr. Hogg: I shall even try to please my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South.
I am no more impressed by the arguments from the Opposition Benches. I listened carefully to what Opposition Members said, expecting that I would find some points of agreement. Their two arguments are


essentially these: first, that it is wrong in principle to make a distinction for the purposes of the rules between men and women; and, second, that we should, as a matter of policy, grant the relevant entitlement to all women settled in the United Kingdom. That is the primary case that the Opposition put forward.
I would be infinitely more impressed by those bold words of principle if it had not been for the fact that in 1969 the then Labour Home Secretary, subsequently the last Labour Prime Minister, introduced the 1970 rules. It is interesting to remember that he said:
it seems that marriage is being used by many young men of working age as a means of entering, working and settling in this country. This abuse of the concession is inconsistent with the general scheme of Commonwealth immigration control."—[Official Report, 30 January 1969, Vol. 776, c. 367.]
The right hon. Gentleman then imposed a ban. What did he do on that occasion? He did two things. He made a distinction between men and women, and he held further that a ban was appropriate because the concession was being abused.
That position is now being denied in most respects by the Opposition. To hear their arguments now and test them against the policy that they implemented when they were in office shows that one should treat their views with some gentle scepticism. However, not merely do I treat the public expression of their views with some gentle scepticism but I think that the Opposition's policy is wrong. It is wrong for this reason. The Labour Party is effectively saying that we should give to female citizens settled in the United Kingdom a largely unfettered right of bringing in their husbands and fiancés. That ignores a deeply rooted anxiety about the level of immigration. That anxiety has been expressed in speeches and sedentary interventions by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I know that it is experienced by many. At a time of high unemployment and real racial tension, it must be an absolute nonsense to advocate measures that would result in a substantial increase in primary immigration that cannot be justified in terms of democratic rights.
One must reconcile two issues—one is democratic rights and the other is the need to control immigration. The criticism of the Opposition is that they do not pay enough attention to the need to control immigration. The criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is that he does not pay enough attention to democratic rights. The praise to be given to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is that he has, in this extremely difficult matter, got the balance about right.

Sir William Clark: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would think it right to rephrase his sentence about whether I pay attention to democratic rights.

Mr. Hogg: I shall not. I do not want to be insulting. I shall put the argument as clearly as possible. We have created a new status of British citizen.

Mr. Marlow: What about the opinion of that British citizen?

Mr. Hogg: I am coming to that point, if my hon. Friend will show a little patience.
We have created a new status of British citizen. We are dealing with the rights of female British citizens. We all accept that the Miss Clarks of the world should have a right

to bring in their husbands and fiancés. I am saying that so should Miss Patel, provided that she is a British citizen settled in the United Kingdom. If we deny that proposition, we create two categories of female British citizens, and that is wrong. For that reason, I commend the rules to the House, and I am certain that the vast majority of my constituents will commend me in so doing.

Mr. William Pitt: I am tempted to say "Follow that", but I shall not do so.
My principal concern with these rules, especially in relation to marriages, is that they will give entry clearance officers and immigration officers far too wide powers. Many hon. Members have experience of the wide interpretation of powers that immigration officers already exert—at Heathrow, among other places—when people, perfectly reasonably, come into this country, and, on an arbitrary decision of an immigration officer, are denied access to their families and friends—even for a visit—and we have to intervene on their behalf. People come in, cap in hand.
The conditions, as they have been tightened up—I refer, in particular, to paragraph 126, which I am sure all Conservative Members will know; and I do not share the optimism of some hon. Members who have spoken—are so oppressive as to make entry for all but the most resolute impossible. In my opinion, that is the intention. In reality, a two-year qualification will probably mean a three-year or a four-year qualification, if retained in the present form. Fortunately, my marriage has lasted for nearly 22 years, and it is my experience that the first two years of a marriage are the most stressful. I do not see why young people should be subjected to additional stresses, when they are already under stress in cementing a new union and a new family and growing new roots. They are then subjected to bureaucratic stresses which can, and sometimes will, be far above the stress that many of them can stand.
Before I leave that subject, I would thank the Home Secretary for the two assurances that he gave us tonight. There is bound to be considerable concern about the children of marriages that break up, for whatever reason. However, I was appalled to hear that the Home Secretary believes that most marriages break up because husbands abandon their wives. Marriages break up for a variety of tragic reasons, many of them in no way concerned with husbands abandoning their wives. However, I am glad to hear that the Home Secretary has taken on board what hon. Members have said and has given us assurances when children are involved.
The nub of this debate—as it was of our debate on 11 November—is fiancés. We are told that one of the reasons for tightening up is the misuse of the arranged marriage tradition, but we have been given no proof. I asked the Minister of State on 11 November:
Much capital has been made of the possibility of men entering into arranged marriages primarily as a means of coming to the United Kingdom. What are the figures for the number of marriages so contracted? There is much hearsay on this subject, but I have yet to discover any hard evidence".—[Official Report, 11 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 732.]
The Minister of State said in winding up that he had been asked a number of questions to which he would reply in writing. So far, I have not been privileged to receive a reply to that question, which was directed specifically to the Minister of State. In fact, it was not until we came here


tonight that we got any evidence at all. We find that the number of men sent back because their marriages have not lasted for a year is 150. I am no mathematician, but I work that out to be about 5 per cent. of the estimated figure of 3,000 people coming in.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Pitt: I shall not give way just now. Nevertheless, we are still told that fiancés are using the arranged marriage tradition as a way of getting into this country. We still have not been given proof of that. I ask the Minister of State again if he will give us categorical proof that these arranged marriages are being deliberately contracted to bring into this country people who do not genuinely want to make an arranged marriage.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Pitt: We now hear of money being advertised in Bombay. Whether we agree with it or not it is a fact that dowries form part of an arranged marriage. They have nothing to do with bogus marriages at all.
The lack of provision for elderly dependent relatives has so far not been mentioned, although it was dealt with in he debate of 11 November. I want to bring to the attention of the House the case of the mother of one of my constituents, Mrs. Soni, about whom I have had correspondence with the Minister. Under the present rules, the adjudicator at her appeal was obliged to deny Mrs. Soni entry into Britain. At the close of his summing-up he said:
I make this decision with reluctance in view of the past history of this matter. Mr. Wadeson"—
who I presume was the lady's solicitor or lawyer—
himself mentioned that I might wish to make some recommendation and this I willingly do.
He concluded:
I have no doubt that there is a strong emotional dependence in this case and in the interest of seeing that justice in its broadest term is done in this case I strongly recommend that the appellant be given leave to enter the United Kingdom to settle by discretionary action outside the Immigration Rules.
I shall not bore the House with the whole of the Minister's letter, but he was unfortunately unable to concur. That lady is still unable to join her family. That is not the only case that I have had. There are elderly relatives in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India whose children are in Britain. They want to see their grandchildren and spend their declining years with their families. That is a perfectly justifiable and honourable wish. Yet the rules make no provision for such people. It is about time the Government considered what they are doing.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Pitt: No, I shall not give way.
It saddened me to hear the Home Secretary defending the rules as he did. I had considerable respect and admiration for him before I came to the House and that respect has grown since. In reality, the Home Secretary did not particularly want the rules, any more than did many of his right hon. and hon. Friends. He has been forced into this by the baying of some of the hard-line, Right-wing Conservative Members. The rules have been brought in for the sake of a quiet life. It is on that basis, if on no other, that I shall vote with my hon. Friends on the Liberal and Social Democratic Benches tonight.

Mr. John Wilkinson: This is one of the many occasions in this Parliament when we have the prospect of Labour, Social Democratic and Liberal Members voting together. On this occasion it will be in favour of a more liberal immigration policy.
The speeches from the Front Bench, both above and below the Gangway, were not, if I may say so, particularly distinguished. That of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) reminded me somewhat of a roly-poly pudding. It was superficially attractive perhaps, but stodgy and fundamentally unsatisfying. However, it did at least have one virtue. The right hon. Gentleman has always been consistent in his suggestion that women settled here, with the right of abode in the United Kingdom, but without British nationality, should have the same entitlement to bring in their husbands and fiancés into the United Kingdom as British women. Although that has consistently been his view, I believe it to be wrong, because our primary duty must be towards women who are British nationals.
The right hon. Gentleman also advocated a return to the status quo ante, which, in immigration terms, means to the status quo ante of 1974. That was the year when the Labour Party instituted its provisions for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. The most significant element was not so much what the right hon. Gentleman said, as what he omitted. On this occasion, his speech omitted two significant points: his previous commitment to the repeal of the Immigration Act 1971 on behalf of his party, and—again on behalf of his party— the repeal of the British Nationality Act 1981. If both of those Acts were repealed, effective immigration control and a sound principle of citizenship would be very hard to establish.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was perhaps more interesting than the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He was, indeed, vaguer. It was astonishing that the right hon. Member for Hillhead should ask the House to disapprove of the rules, when he did not suggest anything in their place. That was a fundamental omission. I should have thought that it was incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman, who, after all, moved the motion, to suggest an alternative.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: rose—

Mr. Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me. However, I shall give way to him.

Mr. Jenkins: I said that the logical, clean, humane and just thing to do was to go back to the 1974 provision, which I introduced.

Mr. Wilkinson: That is interesting and reaffirms my point that the view of the Labour Party and the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance is identical on this issue. I am sure that the electorate will remember that.
We were allowed a tantalising glimpse behind the veil. It was a veil, because the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead was long and contained many abstract nouns—as witnessed by his intervention—but was short on practical prescriptions. He suggested that the jus soli provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 were wrong. However, the British electorate feel that the children of transient people in this country should not necessarily have British citizenship. The British Nationality Act was right in that regard.
Of course the right hon. Member for Hillhead has the same ideas about settled women as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The right hon. Member for Hillhead and I were away from the House for a similar period of time. His sojourn in Brussels has introduced a somewhat fluffy, insubstantial texture to his arguments. It is rather like an over-rich soufflé.
An amendment stands in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and 29 of my hon. Friends. They allege that the revised immigration rules contradict our election pledges. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), I understand their view and sympathise with it. However, I remember my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary saying loud and clear before the election that the Conservative Party's aim was to bring immigration control more into line with the right of abode and with citizenship. As a direct result of the British Nationality Act, we have the revised rules.
If my hon. Friends dislike the revised rules, they should have argued more effectively against the British Nationality Act. I was a member of the Standing Committee, but I cannot remember any eloquent or effective arguments from them then. However, in Committee I pressed the point about the fiancés or husbands of British women. Honourably and rightly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the Minister of State, said that he would think about the matter and return to the House. He has done that with the White Paper, and now with the rules. The most important aspect of the manifesto was the clear exposition, repeated by the right hon. Member for Hillhead, that the rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law, regardless of their race, sex or creed, and their opportunities should also be equal.
Those are the principles on which I fought my election campaign. There was a codicil about husbands and fiancés, but political parties when they reach office have the responsibility to see whether the entirety of their manifesto pledges and commitments make sense in the cold reality and light of office. We found with the quota that it was not as sensible as we had thought. We made the right decision also about husbands and fiancés.
I have twice argued this year that we should extend to British women not born here or without a parent born here the same entitlement to bring in a husband or fiancé as other British women. If I have a general regret, it is that my 30 recusant hon. Friends who signed the amendment have forced my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to impose upon the first two years of marriage of all British women the Home Office scrutiny which previously was intended only for the first year of marriage of British women who happened not to be born here or happened not to have a parent born here. That is a personal regret, but what is more important is that I genuinely hope that the immigration rules will now meet the stipulations of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I know that a small number of my hon. Friends believe that it is not an important document. I believe that the convention is fundamental to our liberties. It is, after all, a convention signed by all the 21 nations of the Council of Europe. I serve on the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I

could not hold my head high in that Committee if my Government and country were to go against an adjudication of the European Court of Human Rights. The convention distinguishes the democracies, the 21 free countries of Western Europe, from the totalitarian people's democracies of Eastern Europe.

Mr. Marlow: Is not one of the problems of the Court that it gives powers to foreign judges to make laws in the United Kingdom without knowing the social conditions that prevail in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Wilkinson: It does nothing of the kind. It merely establishes the principles of liberty which are espoused and shared by all the signatory countries. The Court adjudicates purely and simply on that matter. It does not create laws in this country.
The immigration rules will bring our practices more nearly into line with those of other comparable countries, both within the Council of Europe and in the wider world. I shall briefly list those countries which admit foreign husbands of their own nationals. In Europe they are Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Germany. Not all do so as of right. In Belgium, for example, there has to be a work permit. In France, certain countries' nationals need a visa. I have the same information from the Library as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). In the wider world the list includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Broadly speaking, we have the developed Western world on our side. The safeguards are extremely strict and the rules should be commended to the House.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that he would not wish to go against decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. He then commended the immigration rules that are under discussion, but that begs the question of the likelihood of the European Court declaring fairly approximately that the practices that are set out in the rules go against the rulings of the Court. If that happens, the hon. Gentleman will be forced to change his views on the rules. For that reason he would be better off voting with Labour Members than with some of his hon. Friends.
In a speech of some force the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said that it was repugnant to him that Miss Hogg, born in Britain and wishing to marry a man from abroad, should be treated differently from Miss Patel, not born in this country but a British citizen. With that view I heartily concur. When he talked about a third lady who was not born here but settled here, he said, "We cannot give her the same rights as Miss Patel or Miss Hogg". He said that that was not possible partly because of something that a Labour Government are alleged to have done some years ago—not a very convincing argument—and partly, I suspect, because the need to keep immigration figures down becomes more important than the principles of justice and democracy. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber. I think that he spoilt a good speech by descending to an argument that was feeble and contradicted the important point of principle which earlier he had been seeking to establish.
Even before the draft immigration rules came before the House about six weeks ago, many of us were depressed,


disappointed and opposed to the immigration rules which had been introduced in 1980 and which are still in force. We took that view for one main reason. Many Conservative Members have been talking about the Conservative Party's manifesto. I have seen copies being read assiduously by Conservative Members this evening. Some of them should have read the section on the importance of family life. That is the section that some Conservative Members appear to have forgotten. Many of us believe that the present rules are damaging because of their adverse effect on family life. They keep families apart, they penalise dependants and they prevent children from being united with their parents.
Six weeks ago we debated the draft immigration rules. The Government said that they would listen to the views of the House. They have listened to the views of only one narrow section of the House. In effect, they have said, "We shall listen to the hard-line Right wingers on our Back Benches and we shall ignore the views of the overwhelming majority in the House, many of whom have expressed disquiet about the rules." The Government have ignored their disquiet.
We have had the sad spectacle this evening of the Home Secretary having the support of very few friends. He has alienated himself from some Labour Members who might have given him guarded support. He has done so because of a shabby effort to appease the handful of Conservative Back Benchers who lack basic humanity and are not prepared to support the modest concession in the rules which the Home Secretary has been urging on the House. It is a modest concession but it has been bitterly opposed by certain Conservative Members. We did not vote against the draft rules six weeks ago because of the concession.
Despite what Home Office Ministers say, the European Commission is the main reason why the concession, as we call it, was introduced into the draft rules. I do not understand why the Home Office is being quite so coy about some of the matters that went before the European Commission, which led to some of the cases being tentatively decided, and to persuading the Government to put their concessions into the immigration rules.
I quote from a document that the Government apparently submitted to the Commission:
Women are not necessarily bound to compete for employment and are unlikely to be breadwinners. Women as breadwinners are unusual, for society still expects the man to go out to work and the woman to stay at home.
If that is the argument that the Home Office has been and still is using against allowing settled women to have their husbands join them here, we should examine that argument.
Issue 13 of "Social Trends" published yesterday or the day before, quotes from the 1981 labour force survey. It appears to be the contention of the Home Office that women are not breadwinners and by implication it means that women from the Indian subcontinent, above all, are not employed and therefore not earning income.
These statistics show that of all white women, 46 per cent. are said to be economically active, and 40 per cent. of women from the Indian subcontinent go in that category. If one adds to that 40 per cent. the proportion who are in all probability working with their husbands who are self-employed, the figure becomes similar to that for white women. The Home Office has not made a

worthwhile case, even though that appears to be the only reason why it is not allowing settled women to bring in their husbands.
The delays experienced at the Home Office end by everybody who applies for citizenship will have an effect on the concessions, if the immigration rules are not rescinded this evening, and on women who apply for citizenship and wish to bring in the men of their choice within a reasonable period.
The delays at the Home Office are a byword for incompetence and inefficiency in dealing with applications for British citizenship. It takes over two years for an application to be processed. For example, an East African Asian woman, who will become a British overseas citizen under the British Nationality Act next month, will have to wait six years and eight months to get her voucher to come here. She will have to wait another five years after coming here before being eligible to apply for citizenship, and another two years before getting it. That is a long time before such a woman can avail herself of the concession.
One or two hon. Members have referred to the problem of children, but nobody has so far drawn attention to the problem of children born to parents who are refugees here. They will be in particular difficulty as they will not have British citizenship, although their parents will have no other country to go to because of their refugee status.
A letter that the Home Office sent out on 7 December this year says:
Mr. Raison explained in the debate on the White Paper on 11th November why he did not think it would be appropriate to grant children who do not become British citizens indefinite leave to remain. If they were granted it, then after their parents had taken them abroad they would be able to return here in their own right as returning residents. This would cut across the principle that a child ought to remain with his parents. This argument may have less force where the parents are refugees and therefore there is little question of their re-establishing themselves outside the United Kingdom".
When the Home Office say an argument "may have less force", it is really saying that the argument has no validity at all.
The most objectionable aspect of this shabby attempt to appease the Right wing of the Tory party is not the two-year period or the instant liability to deportation to which a husband will be subject, but primarily the shift in the onus of proof. That onus of proof will be damaging because it will hit genuine marriages and put them under scrutiny.
Even in terms of the Home Office argument, there is no need for these extra powers if the aim is solely to identify marriages that are not genuine, because the present immigration rules contain powers to deal with marriages that are in breach of the immigration rules. There has been no evidence from the Home Secretary that these new and draconian measures are necessary.
His argument was, "Well, if one year is all right, why not two years?", and he produced no other evidence. Above all, the onus of proof is the sinister aspect of these regulations. It will affect all women who wish to marry a man from abroad and have him live here.
To subject a marriage to the kind of scrutiny envisaged in the immigration rules will put that marriage under intolerable pressure. Marriages are difficult enough at the best of times—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but there is a high divorce rate in the United


Kingdom, and marriage is not the easiest of relationships. It will be particularly difficult for people who feel that they will be subject to Home Office scrutiny for two years.
By what standards of justice or humanity is the Home Office now saying, "Prove to us that your marriage is within the immigration rules"? That is a grave departure from the normal traditions operated here as well as from the normal traditions of justice.
The way in which entry certificate and immigration officers subject married couples to interrogation is obnoxious. Last month, an interview took place in Pentonville prison with a man seeking to establish that his relationship was genuine. Two of the questions asked were: "How many times do you make love?", and "Do you give her one every time you see her?" Those questions were asked by a Home Office official, although the point at issue was whether he had a genuine relationship with a woman settled in this country. If that is typical of the way in which Home Office officials ask questions, it augurs ill for the way in which these immigration rules will be applied.

Mr. Marlow: If a young lady in the United Kingdom sets out to marry someone from the Indian subcontinent, whom she has hardly met, it is obvious that that marriage is not taking place on the basis of love. It is obviously not a very convenient arrangement because there are young men in the United Kingdom whom she could marry. Will the interpretation not inevitably be that that marriage is being postulated on the basis of acquiring immigration to the United Kingdom for the young man?

Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking that question, and I do not see the purpose of his repeating it to me. He knows perfectly well that there are different religious and cultural traditions from the ones to which he subscribes, and it is perfectly legitimate for some people here to prefer to have their marriages organised or arranged in a way that is traditional to their religion or culture. Evidence suggests that such marriages often last longer than many white ones. I do not see why the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wants to invest that point with such significance.
I hope most sincerely that the House will reject the immigration rules. I hope that it will do so in the knowledge, belief and confidence that that rejection, will force the Government to introduce a different set of immigration rules that will not include these onerous and unpleasant provisions. They are a blot on British justice and British tradition.

Mr. John Stokes: I am sorry that the Government have not heeded the warning that I and my colleagues gave them in the previous debate. We said that we would oppose any further relaxation of the immigration rules.
I am glad that the Minister of State is present, and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not, but I know that he has attended for a large part of the debate. I have repeatedly made the charge that I am now making against him and the Home Office, and it has not been gainsaid. It is that the Home Office unfortunately seems to be quite blind to the force of public opinion on the subject. Listening to Opposition Members for hour

after hour, one is amazed by the thought of what sort of constituents they must have. One wonders whether they would dare make the same type of speech in front of their constituents.
The Home Office is already under fire in some quarters—not always fairly—for weakness about law and order. With regard to the immigration rules, it has utterly rejected the opinions of the ordinary English voter. I still maintain that the Home Office is too ready to listen to middle-class pressure groups such as the pro-women's liberation or the pro-immigrant lobbies and the so-called courts in far away countries when it should go out into the highways and byways of England and listen to the real voice of the people.
Who are the English people who will be affected mainly by the arrival each year of some 3,000 extra men plus an unknown number of their dependants? Who are affected but the English working class who live in our great conurbations? Immigration is a wholly working-class problem. It does not touch the life, for example, of readers of The Guardian and other high-minded intellectuals who tend to live in the more agreeable parts of the country.
I know that my party was once called the stupid party, but from the time of Disraeli at least, when the working class became enfranchised, the Tory Party always cared greatly for the working class and were suspicious—we still are—of the intellectuals. I believe that we are now letting the working class down; and I am deeply ashamed about it.
I wonder how many letters of support hon. Members on either side of the House have had for the relaxation of the rules. I have received none, but I have received a great many letters from all over the United Kingdom—especially England—expressing hostility, sadness and bitterness at the action that we are about to take. I fear that it will cost my party many votes at the next general election.
I do not know how many Indian and Pakistani young men and women who live here are thrilled by the proposed changes. It must make the likelihood of more arranged marriages much greater, apart from the question of fraud. I am sure that some of these women, who have mixed a little in English society, might wish to adopt our marriage customs and choose a husband freely from one of their own community here. These are details. We have heard too much of detail tonight and not enough about the continuing problem of mass immigration.
The Government have broken a special pledge. They have broken faith with their own supporters, particularly their working class supporters. They have broken faith with the people of England as a whole, many of whom voted for them, although they were not Conservatives, because they thought that this Government at last would take a strong stand on immigration. One by one the pledges against further immigration have been withdrawn by the Government. First, there was the financial help, heard about originally in 1970, for those who wanted to return to their homeland. Secondly, there was the quota of those who were to be received here. Thirdly, there was the register of dependants who were still expected to arrive here.
In addition, the harsh, so-called anti-discrimination laws are being upheld with increasing rigour, to the disgust and dismay of the great majority of the English people living in this land. All that we get now from the Home Office are bland and fatuous platitudes. The relaxation of


the rules is being undertaken at a time of high and rising unemployment. One can imagine how the news will be received by those English people who are still left in the areas where there is a high concentration of immigrants. They are bound to ask themselves who will be the next for the dole queue. Will it be the new immigrant? Or will the immigrant perhaps replace an Englishman at work? There will not be two jobs available. I find it incredible that this Government who, in other respects—certainly in defence and foreign affairs and in their dealings with our EC partners—have shown such strength in upholding British interests, should be so weak in this vital matter.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stokes: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. This has been a long debate. My hon. Friend has not been present for very long.
If hon. Members will imagine for a moment that they are not in this place, not in Westminster and not in Whitehall, but in any ordinary pub, club, shop, house, church or school, who cares about some court in Europe of which few people have heard and which has nothing to do with the EC? Yet this court may decide who should or should not be allowed to come here.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Stokes: People outside the House are sick and tired of hearing humbug from hon. Members about immigration being brought to a halt. It has not, unfortunately, been brought to a halt. In fact, by these measures, it is being increased. These are the views of ordinary voters, as all hon. Members know.
I am not naturally a rebellious person. My record of support for the Prime Minister and the Government is second to none. I hate, therefore, to have to vote against my own Government. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows, I have a high personal regard for him, although we may, from time to time, have had our disagreements. Those things, however, are as nothing to me in my concern as to where my duty lies—my duty to my country, to my constituents and, I believe, to the best and true interests of my party.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Many hon. Members may disagree fundamentally with the remarks of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), but we should applaud the honest and forthright way in which he has expressed an authentic view, which is represented on the Conservative Benches and, indeed, in the country. I take pleasure in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his honesty and in condemning, to use his own word, the humbug that we have heard from his hon. Friends in their attempts to support the Government.
The speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was more impressive for its entertainment value than for the force of his arguments, and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) seemed unclear about his own view. I know of no evidence to suggest that the immigration rules before us will comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. If what the hon.
Member for Ruislip-Northwood said is true, he will find it difficult to hold his head up high when he returns to his committee in Europe.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that before the October White Paper was published there was very little prospect of the rules meeting the criteria of the European Convention on Human Rights and that I expressed the hope that the revised rules would do so?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I certainly acknowledge that, but the fact remains that the rules before us are racially and sexually discriminatory and thus will not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. If the hon. Gentleman wants rules that comply with that convention, for which he expressed strong support, despite the views of his colleagues, he should vote against the rules today.
We have seen on the Conservative Benches today a phenomenon often seen on the Opposition Benches—an attempt to reconcile two entirely incompatible views. The Government have got into the hopeless mess described earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), because they are trying to bring together two utterly incompatible positions on this issue.
I wish to touch on some of the most objectionable features which will lead us to vote against the rules today. In introducing the rules the Home Secretary described them clearly, but he did not seek in any way to justify the changes introduced since they were published just a few weeks ago. It is extremely hard to see what additional evidence there could be or what representations could have been made to the Government to bring about these changes in such a short time. As other Opposition Members have said, it is clear that the reason for the three changes in the draft rules is simply an attempt to assuage the criticism of Conservative Back Benchers today and on previous occasions. The introduction of the changes makes an already bad situation worse. It is window-dressing for the racist sentiments that have been expressed and which Opposition Members utterly deplore. Not only have the Home Secretary and his colleagues not justified the changes but they have not tried to answer the point that the rules are both racially and sexually discriminatory.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that it is window-dressing to prevent persons from taking advantage dishonestly of a change in the rules by entering Britain for marriages of convenience? If that is not window-dressing, I do not know where his criticisms are directed.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Had the hon. and learned Gentleman been here earlier, he would have realised that this great sledgehammer of a proposal is being taken up by the Government to deal with about 150 cases, which was the figure given earlier by the Home Secretary.
The Government are being forced to take action, but not on the basis of the evidence that is before us, and that has been well rehearsed by Opposition Members. I applaud the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge for his honesty and the forthrightness of his approach, but I fundamentally disagree with him. He talked as though Britain was experiencing massive immigration. That is simply not the case, as Home Office Ministers have told their Back-Bench Members and the country. That is why


I referred to the changes in the rules as being window-dressing, pandering to the unnecessary fears raised by racist sentiments and racists in Britain.
I agree with those Opposition Members who have said that the major change since the draft rules were introduced is in the burden of proof. One fears that that change will stop genuine marriages from taking place. It is even worse that the judgment of the entry clearance officer must be exercised on the basis of the evidence that people can give of their intentions. It is impossible to judge people's intentions in such a matter and it is objectionable that a young couple must find evidence of their intentions. That is the most objectionable change, although I do not say that the other changes are not equally bad. The extension of the probationary marriage period to two years simply continues a fairly objectionable system of surveillance that leads inevitably to intrusions into people's privacy and relationships. All hon. Members must disagree with that, no matter what the circumstances may be.
It is regrettable that the Government did not take into account the comments of many hon. Members during our previous debate on the stricter rules on foreign business men coming to Britain. They are the entrepreneurs that Britain needs now to start businesses, to expand businesses and to provide employment.
Although the rules flow from the British Nationality Act 1981 and the reduction of the jus soli principle, they are much more complicated than they need be. The rules will give rise to endless problems with which hon. Members will have to deal at their surgeries. Under the complicated provisions, applications will have to be made by parents of children born in this country who are not entitled, as they used to be, to British citizenship as of right.
I want to refer to what the Home Secretary said about the reasons for the breakdown of marriage. I do not believe that the House should be sanguine and think that we have obtained a concession from the Home Secretary today. I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has interpreted the Home Secretary's comments correctly. The rules seem to contradict what the Home Secretary said, because the grounds for deporting a husband whose marriage has broken down are not discretionary, as the Home Secretary seemed to suggest.
Rule 158 says:
Deportation will normally be the proper course irrespective of the reasons which led to the termination of the marriage or to one of the parties ceasing to intend to live with the other, and irrespective of any period during which he has been resident in the United Kingdom as a husband or fiance.
If "irrespective" means anything, I cannot see how the discretion that the Home Secretary implied was there can exist. I shall be delighted if my interpretation is wrong. However, it creates an uncertainty and I hope that the Minister will clarify the point, because many people will be unsure of their position and about how the rules will be applied.
On previous occasions when rules have been approved by the House, instructions have been issued to immigration officers making it clear that it is not intended that people should be deported, despite what happens at the tribunal, unless they have abused the rules.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): It might be helpful if I drew the attention of the hon. Gentleman to rule 156, which makes it clear that the Home Secretary has the power to exercise his discretion in any of these matters. That is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was talking about.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, as will be all the people outside the House to whom the rule will apply. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, we have made some progress this evening on this if nothing else.
For all the reasons that I and other hon. Members have outlined, we shall seek to defeat the rules to make the Government face the fact that they have not introduced revised immigration rules which will satisfy the European Convention on Human Rights and enable this country to hold its head high, not just in the European Community, but throughout the world.
It is wrong for the Government to exercise discriminatory powers, not just on grounds of sex but on grounds of race. It will be a black mark against this country if the rules are allowed to go through. As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, I am sure that if the Government returned to the House with immigration rules that moved in the direction for which the Opposition have pressed, they would have the support of all Opposition Members and all Conservative Members, except those who are pressing the Government to move in the opposite direction. If the Home Secretary wants a substantial majority, let him return to the House with revised immigration rules which are not discriminatory on grounds of sex or race.

Mr. Tony Marlow: In 1979, I and my hon. Friends made several commitments to the British people. We made a general commitment to end immigration as it had been known in the United Kingdom. We made specific commitments to introduce an annual quota of immigrants and a register of dependants, to provide assistance to those who wished to return to their country of origin, and to end the concession basically to immigrant women to bring in men as further immigrants.
What has happened? There is no quota; there is no register, perhaps rightly. We are fearful of being misrepresented as racist and divisive, so we have not provided assistance for those immigrants who genuinely wish to go home. But we have reversed the concession made by the Labour Government to husbands and fiancés. It now appears that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is embarking on a course of action that would have made the grand old Duke of York seem positive and consistent by comparison. The one commitment that the Government have carried out they are now intent on reversing.
My right hon. Friend will argue that we are not returning to the situation that existed before 1979 and are not giving the right to settled women. How long, Oh! Lord, how long, will it be before the European Court sends shivers down the Home Office's spine and, as night follows day, further concessions are requested of the House?
Had my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) allowed me to intervene in his speech, I would have pointed out that there is not a great deal of difference


between settled women and women with citizenship. They merely have to wait to acquire citizenship and they can then bring in a husband or fiancé. To all intents and purposes, we are returning to the situation that existed before 1979.
I have the greatest respect and affection for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. We spent many long and hard but agreeable days and nights in Committee on the British Nationality Bill together. He will argue that great safeguards are being introduced. It is not basically the safeguards we are concerned about; we are concerned because a further door is being opened to allow further primary immigration.
Let us look at the safeguards, for what they are worth. Marriage should not be used as the basis for immigration. I do not believe that most of us are against arranged marriages. But it cannot be a love match when a girl marries a man from as far away as the Indian subcontinent whom she does not know. A marriage could better be arranged with a man here. A marriage arranged when the man is thousands of miles away must be primarily for the purpose of immigration.
The marriage must endure for two years. That is objectionable, and in any case it will not work. A man may arrive here for a genuine marriage; it may last for a year and a half, and a child may result. When the marriage breaks up, will the man be dragged, kicking and screaming, across the tarmac at Heathrow airport? Alternatively, if a man purely wishes to gain entry into the United Kingdom, evades the safeguards and has no intention of sustaining the marriage, and if he later disappears into the ethnic underground of Coventry, Birmingham or another of our big cities, how do we find him? Are we going to have dawn swoops by the police to make sure that nobody is overstaying, that nobody has gone through a marriage of convenience and is abusing the rules of marriage? It will not happen. It would be too damaging to race relations.
If these marriages take place when they should not, we are told that people will be deported. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I have asked questions about the numbers of people who have been deported. We have been denied answers until today, and today we have been told that there has been an annual rate of 150. One wonders about the qualities of the answers coming forward now, if it has been impossible to give those answers before. One can only be suspicious that, even with these new rules and these new safeguards, people will not be found and will not be deported from the country.
We have had examples in the past of rules which have been too strict, too Draconian, and quite rightly they have not been applied. It is my sincere belief that, even if we pass these rules tonight, eventually these safeguards will not he used, after a period of time—and some, rightly so.
What other arguments do the Government advance in support of their case? We have heard—not tonight—that there has been a reduction in immigration. So what? Hurrah! We should be grateful for that. That is what we all want. So why should we open the door and allow more primary immigration to take place?
There has been a reduction. The number of dependants in 1979 was 26,600. The number of dependants coming in last year was 23,300. The number of people that came in as husbands and fiancés before we changed the rules

was 5,600. If we add those to the figures of last year we get back to a figure that was greater than the figure in 1979.
We have heard the argument advanced of sex equality. The rules are not sex equal. Any of us here who has a son knows that he only has to look at somebody overseas to fancy her and he can bring her in without any trouble whatever. Our daughters are in a completely different situation. They have to go through the whole wretched rigmarole. So the rules are to no extent sex equal.

Mr. Hattersley: indicated assent.

Mr. Marlow: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) finds a point of agreement with me. We should mark it down in our diaries. It is the first time that it has happened.
The point was also made that those who have taken British citizenship have made such a massive commitment to Britain that they should all be treated the same. I think that that is a little naive. I am a bit cynical about it. I believe that people who are not British by birth and take British citizenship do it because they perceive that there is some advantage for themselves in so doing. Having given them that advantage, having allowed them to acquire British citizenship, I do not think that it necessarily follows that we should also allow them the ability to bring in other people and give them British citizenship as well. That does not follow at all.
We have also heard the arguments about families. Do we believe in family life? Can we keep married couples apart? As I said in an intervention, families can combine in two directions. They do not all have to come here at the same time.
We have heard the argument advanced about the European Court, about the possibility—even the probability—that it will rule against us. It has not done so yet.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
When and if the Court has so decided, we can then take the necessary measures. That could take a certain amount of time. Why do we always seem to be at the receiving end of the European Court?
I have asked my right hon. Friend for information about what happens in other countries, including other countries in Europe. I have had answers back from him. Apparently, in a majority of the dozen or so European and Commonwealth countries whose practices the Government investigated, there is no legal right for women to bring in their husbands to join them. We are in advance of everybody else. We are more liberal than everybody else. Our women who were born here, or whose parents were born here, are permitted, as of right, to bring in their fiancés and husbands, but that does not happen in many European countries, not the ones that the Government have looked at.
I shall go into more detail. My right hon. Friend wrote:
Our information is that in four countries—Australia, Belgium, Denmark and Germany—a husband 'may' join a wife … In Germany there are certain residential requirements which the wife may have to satisfy. In a further eight countries—Austria, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States of America—the admission of husbands appeals to be at discretion"—
It is not a right but a discretion. That discretion is—
subject to more or less stringent conditions. What this may mean in practice seems to vary greatly … In France a husband, as we understand it, is admitted only if special considerations render his exclusion undesirable. Five other countries—Bangladesh,


India, Luxembourg, Pakistan and Switzerland—make no general provision for husbands, but they may be admitted in certain circumstances.
I have tried to find out what happens in Pakistan, for example: Marriage is a factor that is taken into account. That is all. We always seem to be the givers. Everyone else always seems to be the taker.
The arguments of the Government, both severally and united, are not satisfactory. We know what has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) advanced the case that some of these things are not practicable and that, when one gets into power, one has to face up to reality. I advance a slightly different case. When one discusses these things, one talks to the people, one knows what is happening and one learns what the people are concerned about and what needs to be done. Unfortunately, after three years in government, stuck away in the ivory tower of the Home Office, surrounded by quango after quango and with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission coming out of the woodwork, the Government are subjected to a barrage of people who represent absolutely nobody. Unfortunately, the Government have gone in that direction. That is particularly offensive to democracy.
The Opposition will not care to listen to me when I make the following points. There are two social problems, which, if the rules are passed, we shall be afflicted with. Young men will wish to come here for marriage believing that the marriage is genuine. Perhaps they have had to pay to get here. They will arrive and discover that they have been tricked. What will happen to them? What is their sad situation? They will be submitted to blackmail, fear and intimidation.
What about the young girls, not born in this country, but brought up here, aged 16 or 17, whose parents decide that they want to arrange a marriage for them? They may not wish it. How will they tell the entry clearance officer and the immigration officer that they do not wish it when they know that their families want to go ahead? If the marriage is arranged at the age of 16, is not that too young? If we pass the rules, all those young girls, some of whom might be willing, and some of whom will not be willing, will be subject to that great and disturbing pressure at a tender age. It is not fair that we should put them in this position.
Those are my words. Those are the points that I wish to make, but other better and greater people than myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—have discussed those matters—

Mr. Cormack: Name them.

Mr. Marlow: If my hon. Friend, who has been making a lot of noise without great effect, will give me a second, I shall do just that.
On 4 December 1979, we debated a similar set of rules—they were better than today's rules. A statement was made that
What we are discussing is the question of men being able to use a provision in our immigration control which enables them to settle on marriage when they could qualify to come in no other way. We must stop this loophole. The Government have a clear mandate to do so.
I was terribly pleased when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that. That mandate still exists today. Later in the same debate my right hon. Friend said:

We cannot go further and extend the provision to all women who are citizens—this would mean leaving the door open to more primary immigration.
How right my right hon. Friend was then and how right he would be today if he said exactly the same.
In the same debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
we have a particular aim, which is to cut back on primary male immigration."—[Official Report, 4 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 254–367.]
My right hon. Friend said that then and I am sure that he has not changed his mind. As he has not changed his mind it will be my intention, and that of many of my hon. Friends, to vote against the rules tonight.

Mr. Jack Straw: I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) in one respect only, and that is that he is right to say that the Government have gone back on the pledges that they made before the May 1979 general election. Between 1978 and 1979 the Conservative Opposition, led by the present Prime Minister, embarked upon a most cynical and disgusting campaign to play upon people's base fears in an attempt to whip up racial prejudice in Britain and, as a result, to buy votes.
Many Labour Members remember only too well the quite disgraceful interview which the Prime Minister as Leader of the Opposition gave on 31 January 1978 on the "World in Action" programme. She claimed that people feared that they might be rather swamped by people of a different culture. That interview was even worse, because the Prime Minister—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) nodding in agreement—sought to compete with the National Front for votes. She went on to say that
some people do not agree with the objectives of the National Front, but they say that at least they are talking about some of the problems".

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement was made just before the Ilford, North by-election, when I was one of the first Conservative Members ever to ask for a National Front march to be banned, and it was?

Mr. Straw: I am aware that the interview was not long before the Ilford, North by-election. I am also well aware that the remarks of the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, provoked a major row in the Conservative Party. Opposition to her was led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former Prime Minister.
On 14 February 1978 The Times had a headline:
Mr. Heath backs 1971 Immigration Act against the Thatcher line.
Whatever the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) may have said when he came to the House, the Prime Minister set out to whip up racist fears and to insinuate and suggest to the British public that if they elected a Conservative Government there would be a stop to all kinds of immigration. Indeed, they were egged on in that regard by their lickspittle, the Daily Mail, which, on 13 February 1978 published a front page story saying:
Immigration: Major Mail poll reveals rising support for the Tories. Maggies's got it right.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that the most Right-wing Members of the Conservative Party accept that it was indeed the Prime Minister's intention, and that of


most Conservative candidates up and down the land, to insinuate that there would be a major cutback in immigration.
The Conservative candidate for Blackburn even insinuated at the election that all race laws should be scrapped and that wider publicity should be given to the facilities already available for voluntary repatriation. It was said that race relations laws should be scrapped because Parliament cannot control a persons's feelings. Be fore the 1979 general election the Conservative Party embarked on a racist campaign to create fear, both in the white community and in the black Asian community in Britain.
The Government have gone back on those election pledges, not because they have suddenly discovered their moral principle but because of the pressure that has been exerted by hon. Members and by the European Court of Human Rights. However, the problem is that, although there has been pressure from Labour Members and from Europe, there has been a countervailing pressure from the Right wing of the Tory Party. The result of those two different pressures is this mishmash of changes in the immigration rules. Under the guise of reform and relaxation, they will often make the situation much more oppressive for immigrants and their families than it is at present.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman really must get his facts right. The European Court has nothing to do with the matter. It has only gone before the Commission and there has been no firm decision.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that minor correction. However, I do not think that Home Office Ministers would suggest for a moment that pressure from the European Commission had not lead to the change.
Many of the so-called reforms are deeply offensive. There has been a change in the onus of proof. It is a fundamental principle of British justice that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. Normally, Conservative Members are only too pleased to stand up for the principles of British justice. Although, as all who have had to deal with adjudicators on immigration appeal tribunals know, the system of justice that immigrants have to endure is second rate, it is nevertheless important that the onus of proof should rest, as it were, on the prosecution. However, the onus will now rest on the equivalent of the defendant. A person will have to prove that he intends in good faith to marry someone. It is not for the Home Office to prove the opposite. That change is compounded by what amounts in the body of the rules to a vicious attack on the culture of the Indian and Pakistani communities and on that of the Muslim communities in general, and by a major misunderstanding about the nature of arranged marriages.
It would appear that many Conservative Members believe that arranged marriages are some form of lottery, in which people send off chain letters and by pure chance are ultimately told that they will marry someone, say, from a village in Gujarat. In case Conservative Members do not know, I must tell them that arranged marriages usually involve far more care being taken in the selection of the partner, and discussion and consideration by the individuals involved, than one finds with many marriages in Britain. Is it better for marriages to be arranged, so that both sides have an opportunity to consider the

consequences of that marriage, or for marriages to go ahead in Britain that have been conceived as a result of a one-night stand in a bus shelter? I have not heard the hon. Member for Northampton, North suggesting that those marriages should not go ahead.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would it not be much fairer to Conservative Members to acknowledge that the opposition is not to arranged marriages as such, but to the arrangement of marriages for financial gain?

Mr. Straw: With respect, that is not what the rules say. The rules also propose that a woman who intends to marry a foreign husband must prove that she has met her husband, intends to live with him and that the marriage is genuine and not for immigration purposes.

Mr. Pitt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by and large, there is a much lower divorce rate for arranged marriages?

Mr. Straw: I entirely accept that point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs). The Indian and Pakistani communities are much better at preserving family life than is the English community. The divorce rate among the Asian communities is much lower than for the English community. Many Conservative Members do not understand the nature of arranged marriages. They are usually arranged between families that have deep associations that go back for generations. If they understood that, they would understand that there is often no need for the individuals to meet each other before they come to this country.
Another objection to the rules is that they involve an unacceptable degree of surveillance of the immigrant community. All Members who represent areas with Asian or West Indian populations know that they are in practice treated as second-class citizens and, quite contrary to the fantasies of the hon. Member for Northampton, North are logged and recorded by the police in every detail. To impose upon the law-abiding immigrant communities of this country the surveillance of marriage over a period of two years is unacceptable.
I have represented Blackburn since May 1979.

Mr. Keith Best: Too long.

Mr. Straw: It is too short in my view. If I have to face the same Conservative candidate as last time, I shall be here for a long time. I am only sorry that he has not yet been reselected for the position.
Those Members who represent constituencies with Asian communities know that these communities were built up as a result of invitations from people in this country. In Blackburn, as the Blackburn Council of Churches has repeatedly pointed out, local textile employers advertised in newspapers in Pakistan and India for workers to come to Britain to work for low wages on the night shift in the mills and foundries of Blackburn. Having invited them in, we have always had a responsibility to ensure that those communities are treated in the same way as the rest of the country.
I very much regret, first, the way in which, by administrative means as well as by changes in the regulations, the Government have sought to treat the Asian communities as a race apart and have accorded them in practice far fewer rights than are given to English people. Secondly, I regret that when Home Office Ministers, who


have never been happy about the racist line taken by the Prime Minister and her Right-wing Friends on the Back Benches, are given an opportunity to change the rules and to introduce some humanity into them to allow women who are settled here to marry men of their choice—a basic and fundamental right—they are so cowardly as to back off from doing so, under pressure from the Right-wing, and bring forward wholly unacceptable regulations.
I hope that all Conservative Members who object to the way in which their Right-wing colleagues are behaving will join us in the Lobby tonight. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) followed the logic of his speech to its conclusion he, too, would join us in the Lobby. I hope that they will all join us in the Lobby to defeat this wretched set of measures and ensure that a better and far more significant set is brought to the House in due course.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I have listened to most of the debate so far and one word that I have not yet heard mentioned is "reassurance". We are discussing the technicalities, the difficulties and the emotional overtones of the rules, but outside the Chamber the people of Britain are interested only in being reassured. When I say the people of Britain, I mean those who are white, black, brown, yellow or whatever colour one cares to name. They want reassurance that we are not going to change our basic character. If a school gets a sudden influx, as happened to me during the war when another school was evacuated on to us, the character of that school changes. I apologise if the lateness of the hour fouled up that statement.
I shall leave my schooldays and move forward. If we can reassure the people—I have said who I mean—that they will not see a change of immensity, we shall have a much more peaceful state of race relations.
The new rules that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is suggesting will not do that. They will be unduly harsh for fiancés who try to prove that they have a genuine marriage in mind. Those who want to feel that no more primary immigration will take place—in my view that is what the last election was all about on the immigration issue—will be given no assurance that another door has not been opened. A further door will be opened if the new rules are accepted, and that will lead to further primary immigration. It is that to which I fundamentally object.
This should not be a matter of scoring party points, an argument about whether the Liberal Party wants to bring in more primary immigrants than the Labour Party or an opportunity to allege that some Conservative Members want to cease immigration for a time. I regret bitterly the fact that we have not gone for the register and quota and sorted out the issue properly. That approach would have given the reassurance that I am seeking. If we had adopted it, we might have made progress. However, the Government chose not to do so. I hope that following the Division the Government will have to think again about the rules. That is why I shall vote against them.

Mr. Edward Lyons: When Britain signed the Helsinki Final Act with the Soviet Union and other countries, there was included in it a reference to

making it "easy" for men and women from different countries to join each other in any of the participating countries. When the Soviet Union began creating obstacles to the fulfilment of that part of the Final Act, hon. Members on both sides of the House condemned it for not honouring its signed agreement. It had signed an international agreement and it was not honouring it. We preened ourselves on our rectitude because the Soviets were not fulfilling their obligation. We claimed that we had honoured what we had signed and that they had not.
We signed the European Convention on Human Rights. We were not forced to do so. We did it as free citizens and as a free country. That involves certain obligations. The European Court of Human Rights was set up under the convention, and we promised freely to honour its decisions. This debate is really about whether Britain honours its international obligations even when some people do not like the effects of so doing. If a party makes a promise in its manifesto that goes against Britain's international obligations, it has to break the obligation if it wins the election. The promise in the Conservative Party's manifesto was, wittingly or unwittingly, in contravention of the European convention as the European Court was likely to interpret it. Once that had been inserted into the manifesto, it meant that a future Conservative Government would have to take Britain out of the Convention before they could legally operate the promise about immigration.
The Government had no intention of doing that. Instead, although there was advice to the contrary, on coming into office, the promise, which may have assisted the Tory Party to achieve the size of its majority, was carried out. The Tories must have suspected that its execution could not remain valid for long. It depended on how quickly the Government were taken to the European Court, how delayed the process in that Court would be and how much the Government of Britain could delay a decision in the Court.
If those taking the Government to the Court had delayed, or if the Government could have delayed the processes in the Court beyond the next general election, the Government could have gone to the counrty in a few months' time—perhaps October—and pointed to what they had promised and how they had performed and said that they were still carrying out the pledge. Unfortunately for the Government, what they had promised was not within their power to achieve honourably because of our international obligations, freely entered into. Unfortunately for them too, the cases look like being decided before the next general election.
Quite rightly, the Government do not want to appear to be a pariah. Many countries have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. Why should Britain be the only one to withdraw? The Government could not contemplate that, and Conservative Back Benchers would not want to either. The Government waited and claimed that they had a good answer to the three claims, but they did not. They hung on and on as it became clearer and clearer that these cases would be decided before the general election. Accordingly, instead of taking action after the general election, if they were to win it, the Government have been obliged to take action before.
I accept that Tories may be unhappy, like others, about what they call additional sources of primary immigration. The Government should behave like a proper member of the international community. If they want to have


credibility next time they attack countries such as the Soviet Union for not honouring their obligations about the joining of families set out in the Helsinki agreement, they must do something about the new rules that they brought in in 1979 in defiance of our convention obligations. They are moving towards that in these rules. They are not moving far enough, and, in retreat from the Right wing, they are inserting disgraceful items.
Those who bitterly attack the Conservative Government for bringing the rules in must know why the Government have done so. They have done so under threat and because they have some regard for Britain's international name, and because they do not want us to be pilloried in the International Court, and the decision to go against us. That is the whole reason, although they have not had the guts to admit it, why the Government have decided to change tack and return to the position before 1979.
In concession to their Right wing, the Government have increased the period before which a husband can stay here, ostensibly from one to two years. This is not true. The truth is that persons entering this country for marriage have three months entry to start with. If the marriage takes place, they get another 12 months, added on to the three months. Under these rules another 12 months will be added to that, making two years and three months before they can apply for permanent settlement.
We all know that the Home Office is not that fast, and when the application is made after two years, three months under the rules, the Home Office will cause an investigation to be made. It can therefore be argued that probably, at the earliest, no husband will obtain permanent settlement unless he has lived with his wife for two and a half years.
What will happen if the husband is the innocent party? Rule 126(f) means that it does not matter which part intends to live permanently with the other. If the husband says "I love you and I want to carry on living with you", and the wife replies "No", it does not matter. Whichever party says "No", the husband must go.
What happens when there are children? After two and a half years there could be one child, perhaps two, but there is no provision for such marriages. As the rules stand, they will in certain circumstances effectively make British children orphans, because if a man who has been deserted by his wife and is looking after the children is sent back, the children will have to be taken into care.
The Government may say "We are kind people, rely on our discretion", but if they are prepared to make exceptions in cases where a woman deserts and there are children, there is no such provision in the rules.
When the language of the Helsinki Final Act, which in our virtue we nailed on the Russians, is examined, we find that the participating State will examine favourably and 
on the basis of humanitarian considerations
requests for exit or entry permits from persons who have decided to marry someone from another participating State. However the phrase
on the basis of humanitarian considerations
appears nowhere in our rules, although we believe it to be suitable in an international convention that we and 20 other European countries have signed.
A few moments ago the Minister of State intervened, not out of great charity but to draw back from the concession given by the Home Secretary earlier. The Minister of State advised us to look at rule 156 which is

headed "Deportation following a conviction". It lists a series of factors that the Home Secretary may take into account.
Rule 158 says that such factors should be taken into account before a decision on deportation is reached. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that under these rules the Government are entitled as of right to remove fathers who are looking after their children. The only possibility of such a father not being removed after desertion by a wife after two years is if the Home Secretary exercises his discretion. It depends on the attitude of the Home Secretary, his officials and the climate of the time. That is exceedingly harsh. We should not be so lacking in humanity in such circumstances as to leave the matter purely to discretion. It is an accumulation of discretion by the Home Secretary on a huge scale.
One of the arguments on the British Nationality Act 1981 was that, to make matters clearer, ministerial discretion should be reduced. There is nothing in the rules that reduces that discretion. It is enormous.
The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said with courage and clarity that the rules will apply to his daughter and to all hon. Members' daughters. If any of our daughters marry, we should not think that their husbands can wander into Britain to join them. An application must be made. If any hon. Member's daughter produces a child and the marriage breaks up, no hon. Member should think that the husband has any right, whatever the colour of his skin, to remain here. The matter will be decided by discretion. Perhaps because our daughters are the daughters of Members of Parliament, everything will be fine, but it is still a matter of discretion.
The hon. Member for Grantham was right. He could not concede a principle that permitted that to happen. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Mr. Raison: Perhaps it would be convenient if I intervened now. The hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong. Paragraph 158 says:
deportation will normally be the proper course irrespective of the reasons which led to the termination of the marriage or to one of the parties ceasing to intend to live with the other.
Those are the factors that apply now. They do not include the existence of a child. We can perfectly well take account of the existence of a child because that is not specified with the other factors. Beyond that, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has discretion under paragraph 156 where it shows quite clearly that compassionate circumstances are included. The hon. and learned Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Lyons: Perhaps I may draw the Minister of State's attention to the second sentence of paragraph 158. After giving the factors that should be taken into account, it refers explicitly to that class of person. It says:
Where, however, a man has remained without authorisation who does not qualify for leave under paragraph 126 because the condition in (e) or (f) of that paragraph is not met, deportation will normally be the proper course irrespective of the reasons which led to the termination of the marriage or to one of the parties ceasing to intend to live with the other, and irrespective of the length of any period during which he has been resident in the United Kingdom as a husband or fiancé.

Mr. Raison: That is perfectly true. Those are the words that I have just quoted. Children of the marriage are not included in those elements. They can be taken into account perfectly well when the consideration of the deportation is made. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Lyons: The Minister of State is repeating the point that I made. He says they can be taken into account. If he is saying that the future of families with children is tried anywhere other than by vague ministerial discretion, perhaps he will show me where.

Mr. Raison: In paragraph 156.

Mr. Lyons: The Minister of State repeats that it is paragraph 156. The only reference in paragraph 156 is to domestic circumstances. I can see the word "child" or "children" nowhere. It says:
the Secretary of State will take into account every relevant factor known to him,
Everyone, especially lawyers, knows what "take into account" means. It does not mean "I shall do something". It means "I am obliged to consider". What harm is there in being obliged to consider? In future, where there are children, the fact is that there is no statutory protection. There is simply the Home Secretary's discretion.

Mr. Raison: There is no such statutory protection now.

Mr. Lyons: The proposed rules increase the period before permanent settlement can be granted from a minimum of one year and three months to two years and three months. The extra year means that it is much more likely that families will develop. The Home Secretary stated in reply to a question that 150 males had been removed last year becasue of breakdown of marriage. It should not be imagined that those marriages were bogus. All that the figure means is that there were 150 cases where the husband and wife were not living together, whatever the reason, at the end of 15 months. The longer the period is increased the more chance exists that one will be dealing with children who are British even under the British Nationality Act.
This explains why the Home Secretary, for whom many hon. Members have affection, was looking so miserable. If ever a man with an uneasy conscience was to be seen, it was the Home Secretary during this debate. The right hon. Gentleman knows that what he is doing is exceedingly shabby. I hope that the House will take that into account.

Mr. Keith Best: In a debate of this nature, when some of my hon. Friends intend to vote against the Government, there is inevitably a certain amount of breast-beating. It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) beat his breast so much that he has turned it into pulp. I had thought that my hon. Friend was not present but I see now that he has moved places. I can only hope that his views have also moved.
It is possible, following some speeches, especially from the Conservative Benches, that the rebellion will prove to be less than expected due to a sense of embarrassment. I wish to make it clear to those who will read the debate or who may now be listening to it that the views expressed by some of my hon. Friends do not represent the majority view on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. John Carlisle: How does my hon. Friend know that?

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) is more telepathic than I had thought. He anticipates my remarks without knowing what I will say. When my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North says that there is no difference between British

citizens and people settled here, he destroys his own argument. My hon. Friend is saying, by natural implication, that there should be no distinction between them. That is precisely what I understand to be one of his objections.
Some arranged marriages may occur for the purposes of immigration. That does not mean that all arranged marriages are for those purposes. My hon. Friends who speak against arranged marriages would, no doubt, have prevented the wives of many monarchs from coming to this country over the last few centuries. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North would no doubt have stood up in the sixteenth century and told Anne of Cleves that she was coming here primarily for the purposes of immigration.

Mr. Marlow: Next time I speak, will my hon. Friend show me the kindness and courtesy of listening to what I say? I did not speak against arranged marriages. I said that I had nothing against them. Will my hon. Friend make his own speech on the basis of what he wishes to say and not on the basis of what others did not say?

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If we have achieved anything today, it is the understanding that my hon. Friend has nothing against arranged marriages. That is a major contribution to the debate. It is important to remember that many people who arrange their marriages do not do so for the purposes of primary immigration and have a perfectly proper right to have those marriages honoured in this country.
I wish to put two questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on this. I accept that some marriages may be arranged for the purposes of immigration, but will he tell us what evidence there is of this? In this context, I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary yesterday
how many persons have been admitted to the United Kingdom under the present immigration rules by reason of an arranged marriage which has been later discovered by his Department to have been bogus.
I received the following written reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State:
I regret that the information requested is not available. The statistics do not distinguish persons admitted by reason of an arranged marriage from other persons admitted for marriage; nor is a central record kept of the outcome of inquiries, by the particular category of abuse concerned.
That does not necessarily invalidate the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State may use today. It does not mean that certain marriages are not arranged for the purposes of immigration. But it means that one must be very careful before subjecting arranged marriages to too many restrictions or too close scrutiny if to do so will lead to unfairness.

Mr. Raison: It would be impossible to collect statistics about which marriages are arranged and which are not. It would be statistical nonsense. Incidentally, I venture to suggest that if Anne of Cleves had met Henry VIII before they married she might have had a much happier life.

Mr. Best: That may well be so, although I am not sure that Henry VIII would have had a happier life.
Will my right hon. Friend also clarify this? Am I right in thinking that of the three cases at present before the European Commission and which may or may not go to the European court only one involves a British citizen and the other two involve women who are settled here and who will not be covered by the proposed new rules, so that this


country may still be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights? I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that today, as, whatever some of my hon. Friends may say, most Members of the House take our treaty obligations seriously and would not wish this country to be in breach of the convention.
Ultimately, however, the rules will be judged on whether they are fair and just by the majority of people in this country. If they are neither fair nor just, they will not command support, they will not deserve to survive, and indeed they will not survive. That may be the most salutary lesson of all.
Having heard the arguments against the rules advanced by some of my hon. Friends and some of the arguments of Opposition Members, I am drawn inevitably to the conclusion that I must support the Government because, having heard those arguments, it seems to me that the rules cannot be all bad.

Mr. Greville Janner: The Minister of State is correct to say that there cannot be accurate statistics of marriages that are arranged; nor can there be adequate statistics of marriages that have broken down because of the pressures placed upon young couples at the most difficult time of their lives by the fear that if they do not stick together for two years one of them will be thrown out of the country. It is impossible statistically to assess the hardship and suffering that the new rule will create, and the lack of compassion in the proposal.

Mr. John Page: The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that if one partner is to be chucked out after two years it will put a greater strain on the marriage. I believe that it would provide the most marvellous cement during a difficult time. In any case, it should be an absolute rule that divorce is not allowed until the marriage has lasted for three years.

Mr. Janner: It is a truly marvellous idea that the cement of a marriage should be the anxiety that if the couple do not stay together one of them will be thrown out. I am not sure how many marriages of hon. Members would have survived on that basis. Indeed, many of them do not survive at all. The cementing that is caused by the absence of one partner soon evaporates into misery, especially if children are involved. It is difficult to see much humour in the misery that the new rules will create.
One matter that has not been mentioned during the debate is paragraph 17 of the statement, which deals with visitors. That paragraph is complained about in many parts of the world and I received many complaints about it when I visited India on several occasions. The paragraph states:
A passenger seeking entry as a visitor, including one coming to stay with relatives or friends, is to be admitted only if he satisfies"—[Interruption]
The right hon. and hon. Members who have seen fit to introduce this motion, but who do not listen, give the House a clear demonstration of the sincerity of the complaint.
The paragraph states:
A passenger seeking entry as a visitor, including one coming to stay with relatives or friends, is to be admitted if he satisfies the immigration officer that he is genuinely seeking entry for the period of the visit as stated by him".
The burden of proving the intention and purpose of the visit rests upon the visitor. The person who wishes to come

to this country is presumed to be coming here for an improper purpose and he must satisfy the authorities that he is not. The paragraph continues:
Leave to enter is to be refused if the immigration officer is not so satisfied.
What is happening in practice is that many genuine visitors, especially from the Indian subcontinent, are being harassed by individual immigration officers tinder the powers contained in the rules. Perfectly respectable people who wish to come to Britain on holiday or to visit relatives or both, are being made thoroughly miserable by the procedures that they must face. Many immigration officers carry out their jobs with understanding and tact, but the minority are harassing visitors. I have heard complaints from Indian business people who wished to bring trade to Britain or to import from Britain, but who say that they will not come here again because of the way in which they or their wives were treated at our ports of entry. Many complaints have been made by hon. Members, including myself, to the Home Office for some years about that treatment. The rules do nothing to change the arrangement.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is it not a sad fact that it is very rare for a person with a white face to be stopped, yet it is a regular occurrence for people with black or brown faces to be stopped and harassed at the ports of entry?

Mr. Janner: If not regular, the occurrence is far too frequent. The practice stops peole from visiting Britain and affects our good name. The burden of proof should be on the opposite side. When a person comes here on a visit, it should be presumed that that is his only purpose. The position becomes worse because immigration officers have to cope with people who know that there is a likelihood that they will be harassed and are afraid of what will happen when they arrive at the barriers.

Mr. Keith Speed: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has travelled to other Commonwealth countries, North America and elsewhere. What he is describing happens at immigration points at virtually every country as unemployment increases. Every traveller is subject to cross-examination of a highly personal and sometimes difficult and offensive kind in North America, India, Trinidad, Europe and elsewhere. We have to face that fact. Many countries are worried that people are trying to enter illegally.

Mr. Janner: I have travelled throughout much of the world including East Europe and have always been treated with great courtesy. About the only place that I have not visited is Moscow, because I cannot obtain a visa. I may receive such treatment because I am a Member of the House. We are treated better because of that, and people know that any unemployment we may suffer is self-induced.
The fact that other nations may mishandle those who wish to enter their territories is no reason or excuse for us to do so, particularly when the complaints almost always come from those people who are brown or black. I have spent 13 years in the House and I have never received—I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends have—a complaint of harassment or mistreatment from someone who did not come from India.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I received a complaint from a Spaniard.

Mr. Janner: It is interesting to know that only one hon. Member present in the Chamber has had a complaint and that it was from a Spaniard. That can happen. But nearly all complaints are received from people with brown or black skins.
When a person is examined under stress, misunderstandings often arise. There are people who tell lies, but there are genuine misunderstandings also, and there is a real language difficulty. When people are asked a question and give an answer that is misunderstood, they are taken into custody. Sometimes someone then telephones a Member of Parliament. That is usually how we are brought into the matter.
I have found that we are treated with understanding and courtesy by the Home Secretary, and by his officials, when we approach the Home Office. The person is released while an inquiry takes place. People generally want to remain three or four weeks, and then they leave. However, if they want to stay longer at the end of the inquiry the Home Office will say that they have had long enough and must leave. I do not understand that, because if those people had wanted to depart into the woodwork or get jobs they would have done so while the inquiry was going on. That is a system without reason, sense or compassion. People feel that they are under suspicion, although they are allowed to walk around freely.
The ultimate unfortunates are the British passport holders who have to wait for up to six years to exercise their right to come here. During that period they are not allowed into the country at all. They cannot even visit to see their relatives. There is no rhyme, reason or compassion in that. I do not understand why peole who have the right to come here should have less opportunity to visit and be prevented in many cases from seeing the family who will look after them when they eventually arrive, and who, at the end of the six years, may be dead. That is what worries people waiting to come here. The visiting system needs overhauling. There is no suggestion in the rules that the position that leads to complaints and constant pressure on the Home Office will be dealt with satisfactorily.
Over the Christmas recess I shall have the privilege of again visiting India. I hope that the Minister will say that the awful procedures are to be overhauled and that at the very least, immigration officers will be told to treat people with more courtesy and respect. Too many respectable people are prevented from coming here for fear of harassment when they arrive.

Mr. John Carlisle: At this hour hon. Members are tired. The debate has been a little too long and arguments have been repeated. I shall be brief.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), like many opposition Members from the various parties, fondly believes that anyone who flies here, particularly from the Asian subcontinent, has no malice aforethought but only perfect intentions.
The greatest abuse of our immigration system is by overstaying visitors. Once through immigration, people may disappear. A case has been dealt with in my constituency only this week where an alleged son was allowed to visit his father on compassionate grounds. His father died suddenly while the alleged son was visiting him. The son was allowed in after representations from myself and the community relations council. The local

secretary now says that if the Home Office turns down his application to remain in the country he will hide him from the authorities. It is humbug for the Opposition to claim that every visitor and every intended marriage is genuine.

Mr. Greville Janner: I made no such claim. There are exceptions. People who cheat exist in every country. But the exceptions are no reason why the rules should be made so harsh and unconscionable. In nearly 13 years of work in Leicester among a large Asian community I have not had one case of a visitor who has been allowed in at my request overstaying or disappearing. The Minister of State will confirm that in every case where checks have been made with responsible people in the Asian community no one has disappeared. We cannot build a system on exceptions when the rule is that people are coming in on visits.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not believe that the hon. and learned Member's experience is shared by many. Visitors do overstay.
I wish to endorse what was said particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). We are sad to be going into the Opposition Lobby to vote against the proposed rules. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and his staff are always extremely helpful, but this time the Government have got it wrong. Twenty per cent. of my constituents come originally from Asia or the Caribbean. Eight per cent. to 10 per cent. are of Irish origin. There are others of various other ethnic origins. I believe that I have their support.
If the proposals are carried, primary immigration will increase. I am not persuaded that the number of immigrants coming here has reduced. It has dropped from 70,000 to 50,000 this year. I say to my right hon. Friend that 70,000 was too many, and 50,000 is still too many. The size of the reduction still does not underestimate the problems that will be created if an additional number of people is allowed in. My constituents think that it is absolutely crazy, as do those who wrote to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge from all over the country arguing that at a time of high unemployment and extreme difficulties, we should consider that by the change in rules a form of primary immigration, however small some people say the numbers are, should be put before the House. The saddest fact is that if the section of the new rules on male fiancés was left out, my right hon. Friend would have had the support of every Conservative Member.
The House must realise that the estimated figure of 2,500 to 3,000 could be increased considerably. There will be some backlog, as we have had two years when the rules have been changed, which could double the figure. There probably will be a large number of dependants who will be anxious to come in and join their sons, sons-in-law, and so on. That matter must be taken into account. It seems remarkable that a Conservative Government who have stood by virtually every other manifesto commitment, and passed legislation in the House with the approval of—[Laughter.] The laughter on Opposition Benches puts me in mind of an article by Mr. Bernard Levin in The Times today. He opposed those of us who do not like the change in the rules. He finished the article by saying that, if the rules were not approved, he would consider voting for the Alliance and that the Conservative party should be wary of such people. From what we have heard tonight, people


who vote for Opposition Members and their proposals must understand that the gates would be opened. They have said that unashamedly.
It is sad that the Government made that commitment. In speeches hon. Members have admitted that a promise was made but has not been kept. Therefore, regrettably, I shall be in the Opposition Lobby tonight.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) say that he will not vote with the Government. He concentrated his argument—I hope that I do not do him an injustice—on the proposal concerned with male fiancés. He emphasised that he was concerned solely with male fiancsé. If that is the issue in relation to the problems of immigration, it seems to me that it is de minimis. The numbers, even if they are greater than have been suggested, are very small in relation to what could be called the total immigrant community. I am not sure what is the total immigrant community. How far do we go back? How many of us can safely say that we do not descend from immigrants? I cannot, although it was a generation or two back.
I am in my tenth year in the House. I was fairly actively involved in politics for 10 years before that. I recall campaigning in the 1964 general election in London and becoming aware of the problems created by immigration and the concern in the community about it. In all those past 20 years there has been a problem. There is always concern. No Home Secretary has ever tackled the problem with the confidence that he would satisfy hon. Members in every part of the House. No Home Secretary in the next 20 years or for a longer period will be able to bring forward rules to the House that will satisfy all the divergent interests.
We are seeking a sensible, fair and just balance, and, in my view, that is what these rules achieve. It is not just a matter of a balance between the scale of the immigration at any one time in relation to the problems of the assimilation of immigrants who have recently arrived; it is a matter of finding a balance between the rights and responsibilities, particularly of the Conservative Party, to look to the family and to strengthen family ties. I am keen that we on these Benches—supported, I hope, by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—should do all that we can to strengthen the family as the essential foundation of our society.
I am delighted to see in the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe a section relating to the rules on marriages between citizens of different States. I do not suggest that the rules that we are discussing tonight will apply solely or even mainly to the participating States of that conference. In general, the problems will arise with States which were not involved. However, I do not see why the sentiments, and sentences, to which our Government subscribed in the Helsinki agreement should not equally apply in the circumstances that we are now considering.
I am glad that a number of my hon. Friends who may have reservations about these rules would be forceful in their criticism of the Soviet Union and other countries in the Soviet bloc on the extent to which they deny to their citizens the rights to which they subscribed in the Helsinki agreement. Perhaps I might remind the House of the words of section (c)—

Marriage between Citizens of Different States"—
of part 1 on "Human Contacts":
The participating States will examine favourably and on the basis of humanitarian considerations requests for exit or entry permits from persons who have decided to marry a citizen from another participating State".
That paragraph refers not to people who have married but to people—
who have decided to marry a citizen from another participating State".
If we subscribe to those rules in respect of the 40 States—I think—which participated in the conference, I see no reason why we should not subscribe to similar rules in respect of citizens from other States. That is the right and balanced approach to the need to give the rights of the family a high priority in assessing how to establish the rules.
Right hon. and hon. Members from the numerous parties on the Opposition Benches all seem to share a similar view, which I find more than a little exaggerated. They seem to think that it is possible to devise a set of rules to strike a balance which would be fair and just and which would in some way admit every person and class of person that they can imagine. That is not the Government's approach, and it is not an approach that I would support.
These rules are fair, just and reasonable in relation to the numbers of people involved. I stress that aspect to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West, because we do our cause no good if we exaggerate so grossly the numbers in relation to the total scale of the problem. The rules give sufficient priority to the importance of allowing the family to continue to be the foundation of every section of our society. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I inform the House that winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 1.40 am. Therefore, speeches should be brief.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I want to make two brief points. First, I want to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on visitors. There is no doubt whatever that over the past year I have received more complaints than in any similar period previously about people who want to visit Britain being refused. Without exception, they are all people from the Indian subcontinent. I have not had one complaint about an Australian, a New Zealander or a Canadian being refused admission at the airport as a visitor, but there have been increasing numbers of such people from the Indian subcontinent. To be fair to the Home Office, a person is normally allowed out on temporary release when I telephone. However, by that time two or three weeks have passed and the person has to leave.
One particular category of person who will almost inevitably be refused permission is a person who at some time in the past applied for permanent residence in Britain and been refused. If a person who has been refused permanent residence years ago—perhaps quite rightly under the immigration rules—applies several years later for a visitor's permit to see his family, he will almost automatically be refused entry.
Secondly, we have now reached the stage where the Minister should say, as many other European countries


have said, that we shall not send anyone back to Iran against their will. The Minister will say that Iran is a stable regime. It may be in so far as there will not be a revolution tomorrow. The Soviet Union is a stable regime and so was Nazi Germany. However, we all know the dangers of what is happening to people in Iran at the moment. We have evidence of people being taken off the plane and shot at the other end.
I accept that there may be people who will slip through the net—perhaps the odd individual who is trying to evade national service in Iran and is taking one educational course after another. However, just as British justice rests on the belief that it is better that two guilty people should go free than that one innocent person is hanged, the Minister should now take a blanket decision, as have several other European countries, not to send people back to Iran who feel that they may be in danger were they to be sent there.
It is no good the Ministry saying that it needs proof that a person will be in danger. How can such proof be given? There is no way. For example, the son of a colonel in the Shah's army cannot prove that if he goes back to Iran something will happen to him, but there is a fairly good chance that he will be in danger if he were to go back.
Again, to be fair to the Minister, until now I have not too many complaints about the way he uses his discretion. However, I can see no reason why Britain cannot do as several other European countries have done and say that we shall not send anyone back to Iran against his will. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something about this, because it affects many hon. Members who have Iranians in their constituencies.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) will forgive me if I deal, not with the issue of Iranian students but briefly with the main issue—the position of male fiancés and husbands. I should like to take up the theme raised so well and forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and to answer the three points raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
Of course, it is true that there was a considerable debate about immigration within the Tory Party between 1974 and 1979. It was largely an undercover debate. Only two or three times were we allowed to have a public debate, because that bipartisan policy, which those of us who disagree with it would describe as a conspiracy, was working well. It was rarely possible to hold a debate in the Chamber. However, there were many debates in the Tory Party's home affairs committee and great excitement raged during them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove referred to the family, and there was massive pressure in favour of saying that no more dependants should be allowed into Britain. However, because the Tory Party rightly said that, above all, it recognised the importance of the cohesive force of the family and because we felt that that doctrine should be properly applied to the immigrants in our midst, we resisted the pressures of those who wanted us to say that no more immigrant dependants should be allowed in.
However, we discussed ad nauseam the position of arranged marriages. I thought—obviously wrongly—that

we had come to the conclusion that, although we had no criticism of the arranged marriage in other countries, and had almost no view about the arrangements made within families in other countries, we did not see any reason why the arranged marriage should be used as a method of entering this country.
Therefore, we pointed out some of the consequences of the change that had taken place in August 1974. As has been said, the Tory Party did not oppose that change. I remember the proposals in August 1974. I had not been in the House long and I was unfamiliar with the opportunities open to Members of Parliament to take individual action. I remember being very anxious to oppose that change in August 1974, but the Tory Party was going through a period of pre-electoral caution and we did not oppose it. However, after August 1974 there was sustained concern about the way in which the arranged marriage was providing a means of entry into Britain.
Of course, as one would expect with the influence of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that pressure was eventually felt within the Labour Party. In 1977 the rules were changed to impose the 12-month rule. At about that time—and here I disagree with the hon. Member for Blackburn—we Tories gathered round the compromise of the speech made by my right hon. Friend, now Secretary of State for the Home Department, in Leicester in 1978 and we were clear that we would not allow the arranged marriage to become a means of male entry into Britain. It is now incontrovertible that we have gone back on all of that.

Mr. Michael Mates: No.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend says "No". There are those who have argued that it is only a partial going back. It is regrettable. I see that the Home Secretary has entered the Chamber. There has been no conspiracy and no deceit. There has been a great deal of muddle. This particular and important policy has been conducted neither with clarity nor consistency. As a result, there will be much ill-will. I fear that, though the system of controlling entry by arranged marriage, as put forward by the 1980 rules, was not perhaps entirely effective, and was perhaps a rough and ready mechanism for controlling that form of entry, it was a great deal better than the rules under consideration tonight. Not only are the rules a breach of our obligation to the electorate but, with regard to the safeguards, it is obvious that the Home Secretary has made the position much worse since we last debated the issue.
I am convinced that the two important factors within the safeguards are unenforceable. If a serious attempt were made to enforce them, the anger shown by hon. Members would be so great that any Home Secretary would have to give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) made a good point when he said that the safeguards will be applied to Miss Hogg if she wishes to marry someone from outside the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend demonstrated how forceful and articulate he is. Let us consider what will happen in 10 years' time if the rules, with their present safeguards, are being enforced.
Miss Hogg and her male fiancé will be humiliated. How will that male fiancé discharge the burden of proof to show that he does not wish to evade immigration controls? How will he prove that he intends to live permanently with Miss Hogg? How will he prove that he has met Miss Hogg? The


anger from both sides of the House will be great. This is a most defective mechanism. In the end, it will not be enforced. I dare to say in a cynical way that it was never intended to be enforced, but if it is enforced much harm will be done by it.
It is said that if a marriage is terminated within two years the husband will be deported. How will the husband be found? Is there a system of identity cards in Britain? Is there any system of regular surveillance of the population? Is there a majority in the House for identity cards? Is there a majority in the House for regular surveillance by a vastly enlarged police force? Of course not. There is no serious intention to enforce this.
I found rather worrying my right hon. Friend's production of a figure for the number of persons who have been deported. He said that there had been 150 deportations. A number of hon. Members—I dare say right hon. Members, too—have tabled questions to ascertain the number of deportations under the rules. Until today none of us has had a specific reply. My right hon. Friend says now that there have been 150 deportations. If that is so, perhaps we should have heard about it before. It seems that it is rather a shot in the dark. I suspect that there is no way of knowing how many people could be deported if the two-year rule were enforced.
The safeguards have made the position worse. They have done nothing to assuage the genuine fears of those, such as myself, who believe that we are going back on our promises to the electorate. They have raised real doubts about the authoritarian nature of any sort of surveillance that might go with the safeguards if they were enforced.
We who intend to vote with reluctance and sadness against the Government are doing so not because our position, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) put it rather grandiloquently, is logically absurd and socially pernicious but because there has been a great deal of evasion, appeasement, muddle and trimming. We do not believe that there has been a conspiracy. This lack of consistency means that we are in a much worse position than we might have been if we had kept consistently to one course.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of State, Home Office, and the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), the Leader of the Liberal Party, for allowing me to say a few words in replying to the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I shall not follow the well-trodden path that has been laid out for me by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
We have had an interesting debate, for two main reasons. First, we have witnessed the Home Secretary's ability to make policy changes in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He made the concession that husbands would not necessarily be deported where the wife had died. Secondly, he said that there would not necessarily be deportation where the wife leaves the husband and the husband has the care of the children. If the right hon. Gentleman still stands by those two concessions, I ask the Minister of State to tell us whether he is prepared to extend the second one to cover all cases where children are involved when the family splits up.
Secondly, the debate has highlighted, like no other debate on immigration in this Parliament, the divisions

within the Tory Party on immigration. It shows beyond any shadow of doubt that the genuflections that the Home Secretary has made to the hard Right of the Tory Party have been in vain. We have heard from two Conservative Members that they do not want a quota or a register of dependants. If they had been prepared to say it, they would have said that they want to stop black immigration into Britain altogether.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) claimed that the Government have betrayed the Tory Party's manifesto of 1979. He showed the flimsy form of his argument by saying that the safeguards that are written into the new rules are trite and meaningless. In the next breath he said that the rules involved draconian and authoritiarian factors. I do not see how on the one hand the safeguards can be trite and meaningless, and on the other be draconian and authoritarian. That shows the dubious nature of the arguments of the hon. Member for Basildon and his hon. Friends who, for their various reasons, will be voting against their Government's rules tonight.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made a rather silly point, although he is not usually silly on these matters. He made some play about the admission that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made about our intention to repeal the British Nationality Act 1981. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are discussing the new immigration rules this evening and not the Labour Party's policy as regards nationality when we form the next Government within the next 16 months. I can repeat on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Labour Party that it is still our intention to repeal what we consider to be the sexually and racially discriminating nature of the Act.
There has been a deliberate attempt by some Tory Members to misrepresent the official Labour Party policy. I shall repeat what that policy is for those Members. We wish to see equity between sexes, and equality of treatment between people of different racial groups legally settled in the United Kingdom. Contrary to what Tory Members believe, this would not lead to large-scale primary immigration to the United Kingdom, a point reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
It is on this criteria that we have made the charge of sexual and racial discrimination against the successive changes under the Government. The Labour Party voted against the new rules in 1980, and one reason among many for that was that the new rules removed the right of non-United Kingdom born female citizens and those females legally settled in the United Kingdom to bring in husbands and fiancés.
The Labour Party abstained on 11 November in the debate on the White Paper, even though the draft rules included at the start of the White Paper still contained many of the paragraphs that we found obnoxious in 1980. We were prepared not to vote against it because it included a minor concession to non-United Kingdom female British citizens. It was for that and no other reason that we did not vote against the White Paper.
The Home Secretary, stampeded by the lack of support of 50 of his Back Benchers, tightened up the concessions that he introduced in the White Paper to make them meaningless for the small group that he intended to assist, and made the position of all female British citizens, black or white, worse under the new rules than under the existing ones. We make that charge for two reasons.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Marshall: I have only a few minutes left, so I shall not give way.
The first change is the change of burden of proof. This will reduce the number of successful applicants, and is a back door method of reducing the number of husbands and fiancés entering the United Kingdom. Contrary to what the Tory Right wing would believe, the new rules would not lead to any new primary immigration, but to a reduction.
The two-year rule will lead to unnecessary intrusion into people's private lives and in some cases will place an intolerable burden on marriages. For those two reasons, and the other reasons that we stated against the changes in 1980, the Labour Party will be voting against the Government.

Mr. David Steel: In winding up, I hope briefly, at this late hour, that it might be helpful if I stick to the two changes that the Government have introduced since the House last debated the proposals a month ago. It is significant that the Home Secretary noticeably failed to justify either of the two changes. He explained what they were, but he could produce no argument in pursuit of them.
The whole House knows why these two changes were made—simply as an attempt, possibly fruitless as it turned out, to appease the Conservative Party's racist, Right-wing Members. It was an attempt to meet the demand that he act tough and toughen up the rules in the White Paper.
I have listened to part of every speech in this long debate, and we have been treated to a series of mean-minded and nasty contributions from the Conservative Benches. I do not wish to refer to any particular hon. Member in that vein. However, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) denied that he had anything against arranged marriages, yet he made it quite clear in an intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) that he thought that if people wanted to get married they should come here on the basis of love. If that is not a moral judgment on the difference between an arranged marriage and one to which we in this country are accustomed, I do not know what is. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is unable to draw a distinction between a bogus marriage and a properly arranged one.
I have attended an arranged marriage—not in this country—and discussed the whole ethics of the system with those who practise it. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), although I would put it more delcately, that quite a good case can be made for saying that a properly arranged marriage is more likely to prove successful than one hastily arrived at as a result of some passing attraction.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Steel: My time is limited, and the hon. Gentleman had a fair run.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) managed to refer to the—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Steel: —European Commission of Human Rights as one of the courts in far away countries. He managed to leave out the last phrase "of which we know

little". What an extraordinary reference to a convention to which this country, along with every other member of the Council of Europe, has long been attached!
This little Conservative group which has continued this opposition to these rules attaches particular importance to the manifesto commitment—which my right hon. Friend rightly referred to as specific but foolish—that the Conservative Party would seek to exclude the rights of entry of husbands and fiancés. Why have those hon. Members suddenly fastened on to this manifesto commitment? What about the commitments to cut the dole queues, to abolish domestic rates, to reduce tax at all levels and to abolish the poverty trap? We hear nothing about those.
These rules involve two changes from the proposals put before the House a month ago. The first seeks to extend the period in which a marriage must be proved to exist from one year to two years, and the second puts the burden of proof that the marriage is genuine on the marriage partners. The latter is by far the most serious breach of our normal rules and conventions.
The Home Secretary said that 150 men were deported last year after the breakdown of marriage. What he did not tell us—perhaps the Minister of State will do so in his winding-up speech—is how many of those 150 were sent back as a result of a natural breakdown of marriage as opposed to the proven revelation of a bogus one. I assume that not all 150 were deemed to be from bogus marriages. We are, therefore, erecting this whole paraphernalia for perhaps 75 or 100 people who have abused our rules, created bogus marriages and then been sent out of the country.
When one reduces the number to that figure, it is nonsense for Conservative Members to talk as they have of wholesale immigration and of floodgates being opened. It reminds me of something someone said to me recently: "Just because you are not paranoid, it does not mean that they are not out to get you." That is the type of attitude that has been proclaimed by some Conservative Members today.
On one important matter I fundamentally disagree with something that the Home Secretary said. He said that those who have entered into marriages lawfully here have nothing to fear from the proposals. I disagree. In future, all those who bring in husbands or fiancés will be subject to intrusion and questioning, both on entry and for two years thereafter. It is morally indefensible to make people who have come here for perfectly genuine marriages suffer that intrusion simply to appease the prejudices of a handful of Back Benchers.
We must accept that, unfortunately, racism exists in Britain. It exists among the population at large. The House is representative of that population, and it exists in the House. It therefore exists among police and immigration officers. They are the ones who will be asked to carry out the enforcement. While a racist taxi driver may be a minor social irritant, a racist police officer or immigration officer is a major social hazard. We are asking them to carry out investigations and to ask people who are coming to be married in Britain to prove to their satisfaction that the marriages are genuine. That is an intolerable imposition.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) referred to people being deported after the breakdown of their marriage, regardless of their domestic circumstances. In cross-examination earlier, the Home Secretary made a few important concessions.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between what he said at the Dispatch Box and what is in the rules. More than once he asked why, if a man leaves his wife suddenly after a short time or abandons her, he should be allowed to stay here. There is a plausible argument for that, but that is not what the rules say. Paragraph 158 states that
deportation will normally be the proper course irrespective of the reasons which led to the termination of the marriage or to one of the parties ceasing to intend to live with the other".
There is nothing there about the husband abandoning the wife and therefore having used the marriage merely as a means of entry to Britain.
It is dangerous for the Home Secretary to make his own interpretation at the Dispatch Box. Immigration and police officers and adjudicators will not have the Home Secretary's words in Hansard before them; they will have the rules. And the rules, as my hon and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West rightly said are written far more widely.
With regard to manifesto commitments, we should remember that part of the Conservative manifesto that referred to the priorities for Government. It listed five tasks, and task four was "To support family life". There is no doubt that the family life of many in the ethnic minorities has been severely disrupted by the immigration rules, the rules for settlement and the rules for visitors. Many hon. Members, especially those with experience of representing the ethnic communities, have complained about the effect of the rules on the family life of their constituents. If the Conservative Party is to remain true to its pledge to support family life, that must mean supporting the family life of the ethnic minorities who are lawfully in our midst as well.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made a point with which I agree. There is some doubt about whether the new rules will satisfy the European Convention on Human Rights. No one has quoted directly from it. Bearing in mind the rules that we are being asked to approve, article 8 states:
Everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, his life, his home, and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of his right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The rules suggest a considerable interference with the normal domestic life of certain individuals once they are married in this country. By shifting the burden of proof to put the onus on the applicant to satisfy officers that he qualifies, rather than expecting the officer, as has happened up to now, to show reason to believe that the parties to a marriage have not met, do not intend to live together or that the main purpose of the marriage is immigration, the Home Secretary has increased the abuse of the article of the convention.
I return to the charge made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead, the Leader of the SDP, at the outset. No one disputes that the Home Secretary is a nice chap. The fact is that he gives in and he concedes. The right hon. Gentleman was not present to hear many of the speeches made from the Conservative Back Benches. He cannot be proud. The charge made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead is correct. The Home Secretary should have stood up against the pressure. All hon. Members were moved by his declaration of loyalty to the

Prime Minister. Our charge is that he continues to support the Tory Party through thick and thin, regardless of what individual hon. Members say and do.
The right hon. Gentleman would do well to heed what Mr. Levin, a supporter of the Government at the last election, wrote in The Times yesterday. He said:
I do not at all care for the idea of being ruled by people who … wish to deny married or engaged couples the opportunity to live together in my country, and the more the Tory Party seems to reflect the views of such people, the less enthusiasm I shall have for supporting it.
I hope that if the Home Secretary will not listen to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, he will listen to those who supported his party at the last election.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): No one can grumble that this has been an abnormally long debate, given the importance of the issue and the depth of feeling that exists. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on making what I believe is his debut on the Opposition Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has reminded the House of the difficulty experienced over the years in deciding how to treat husbands from overseas. The right hon. Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and we ourselves in 1980, have tried to come up with the right answer to the problem. The problem has persisted. It is clear from today's debate that it still persists.
It is not surprising that the problem should persist or that it should be so difficult. There are, after all, a whole mass of different factors to be examined. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), in his rollicking speech, said that there were two factors. In fact, there are more. There is the need to restrict and to control immigration, particularly primary male immigration. Conversely, there is the desire to provide a humane context for family life. There is the need to check abuse particularly when marriage is used simply as a tool for achieving immigration.
There are our international obligations. There is our desire to create a fair society for those who are our citizens and to aim towards the fulfilment of our manifesto commitment that the rights of British citizens are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed. That is a commitment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred in what I am told was an admirable speech.
Everyone in the House knows that these factors may conflict with one another when we come to take our decisions, and out of them we must somehow or other draw together the things that we believe to be right. Those things must be right for our nation as a whole and for our self-respect. What, then, have the Government decided? What are we putting before Parliament today?
As the House by now knows, there are two areas of special importance in the new rules. There are the rules governing the admission of husbands and male fiancés and those governing the position of children who under the British Nationality Act will not automatically acquire citizenship by birth. That is set out in part V of the rules.
I wish to say a little about the rules affecting non-citizens born here, as this is a significant part of what we are doing. The British Nationality Act provides that


children born here will acquire our citizenship at birth if one or other of their parents is a British citizen or is settled here. If either parent subsequently acquires the necessary status, the child will then be entitled to acquire our citizenship.
That provision is more generous than the traditional European jus sanguinis. Nevertheless, it marks an important change. It says that a child, neither of whose parents is going to be a citizen or settled here—in other words, a part of our life—will not have the automatic entitlement to live here and hold our citizenship for the whole of its life, as was the case under the old rules. When the child leaves this country with its parents and returns to their country, it will normally belong there and will not be able to transmit our citizenship to his or her children wherever they are born. Therefore, we shall not be faced, as we are at present, with a third generation of people entitled to claim our citizenship wherever they grow up. That, I submit, is of very great importance.
Quite reasonably, we are saying that our citizenship is primarily for those who belong here and that there is no reason why it should be passed on to those whose connection with this country is slight or even fortuitous. That is an important part of our new nationality scheme now being translated into the rules. At the same time, the change will make it possible to deport children with their parents if the parents have to be deported for overstaying or for other reasons. Again, that is a reasonable and important new measure of immigration control.
In general, of course, our rules in relation to such children are rooted in the notion of keeping the children in line with their parents. No one can grumble about that. I do not think that anyone can say that the rules have been drawn up in an inhumane way, but they head off the possibility that the existence of a child born here would guarantee the right of its parents to remain, whatever their status. Such a situation would make nonsense of effective immigration control in relation to those who overstay or are here illegally.
Therefore, I say again to my hon. Friends that our new rules embody a very important feature of the British Nationality Act. Those of my hon. Friends who care deeply about immigration control should remember what the Act achieves in that respect.
The major issue today is the position of husbands and male fiancés. Why do we believe that it is right to allow husbands or fiancés to be brought into this country by all British citizen women and not just by those born here? That question is the crux of the debate and the answer is the same as it has been all along.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said in his excellent speech, the British Nationality Act created for the first time a status of British citizenship for those who belong most clearly to this country. That citizenship is tightly, but fairly, drawn. It is distinct, as we all know, from the British dependent territories citizenship and the British overseas citizenship, neither of which give the right to live here. In general, it is for those who are committed to this country, and it is a symbol of our unity in this country. That is why we believe so strongly that the women who hold it should all be on the same footing when it comes to deciding whether they wish to bring a husband to Britain—whether they were born here or not. That is the crucial point in the

debate. We have created a British citizenship for those people and the women who hold it must all be in the same position.
There are those who believe that the woman who wishes to marry should invariably live where the man lives. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for his genuinely kind remarks about me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I mean that. I may not win over my hon. Friend tonight. He said that the woman should live invariably where the man lives. I do not believe that I misquote him.

Mr. Marlow: What I believe I said—[Interruption.] What I know I said is that it is the custom on the Indian subcontinent for the woman to live in the husband's home town. My argument, arising out of that, is that, if we are saying that marriage must not be entered into primarily for the purposes of immigration, and as we are not against arranged marriages, by and large, in the House, if women in this country wish to involve themselves in an arranged marriage, surely they could involve themselves in this country. If they seek an arranged marriage with someone outside this country and wish to bring them into this country, by definition that must be for the purposes of immigration. That is the question that I wish to have answered.

Mr. Raison: I do not deny the fact that it may have been the custom on the Indian subcontinent, as in other parts of the world, for the woman to live with the man. However, customs change and not all people wish to conform to the customs of their day. Would my hon. Friend be happy, if his daughter were to decide to marry a foreigner, that there would be no choice as to where the couple would live? Perhaps he would be happy, as would other hon. Members.

Mr. Marlow: She was born here.

Mr. Raison: I understand that, but she may easily not have been born here.

Mr. Marlow: I was born here.

Mr. Raison: We are talking about people with different backgrounds and characters. The question is whether we wish the daughters of British citizens to have such a choice. Although my hon. Friend disagrees, I believe that it is right that those who hold our citizenship should have the choice.
Traditional customs are important, but the world changes. Therefore, if a woman is our citizen, she should have the opportunity to marry someone from another country but to continue to live here. However, we also believe that the opportunity should be confined to those who hold our citizenship and it should not be extended to those who are simply settled here but who are citizens elsewhere. I believe that is justified. There is a distinction between the commitment entailed in citizenship and the lesser commitment entailed in settlement by someone who still retains his or her citizenship of another country.
There is another important proviso which was developed in 1980 and which we are now proposing to strengthen. That is the proviso that the marriage should not simply be a device for securing the immigration of the man involved. That is crucial.
We have to face the facts that the pressure for migration to this country is primarily from the Indian subcontinent,


that the arranged marriage system can be the means by which migration may be brought about. That does not condemn the arranged marriage or try to outlaw it.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was wrong in his assessment of what we are doing. Of course people are entitled to make up their minds about the rights and wrongs of different marriage systems, but it remains a fact that it is a system that can be abused for immigration purposes. We are determined to do all we can to check that abuse.
There is nothing new about this. May I remind the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) of what she said about the question that has been raised by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. On 10 May 1977 she said:
First, I must make it clear that evidence within the Home Office left no doubt that there was substantial abuse by men from a wide variety of nationalities, and that the previous rules were inadequate to deal with it. In the nature of things no precise indication can be given of the scale of the abuse because, as the rules stood, it was only where the circumstances in which a marriage was contracted gave rise to suspicion that the possibility that it was a sham was brought to attention. But we believe that there have in fact been several hundred cases a year of that kind, in which men were seeking settlement on the basis of marriages which seemed dubious, to say the least of it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 1979; Vol. 383, c. 223.]
In 1977, the hon. Member for Halifax defined the problem clearly.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If that was the hon. Lady's estimate of the possible consequences, why is it that after she and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) changed the rules it is still possible to find only 150 of these so-called bogus marriages?

Mr. Raison: The figure of 150 is a rough and ready estimate of the scale of the abuse in one year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not claim that it was a precise statistic. It is not possible to give precise statistics. It is important to stress that it is not just a matter of the number of such marriages that are uncovered that should interest us, but the fact that the impact of the rules is bound to have a deterrent effect. That is always part of the object of creating such rules.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Why is the right hon. Gentleman strengthening the 1977 rules? What evidence has he that those rules were not adequate? Why does he have to increase the time to two years in order to implement them? What signs are there that it is necessary to do that?

Mr. Raison: The great majority of people who go to look closely at these matters in the Indian subcontinent—Select Committees and others—return having realised that there is scope for abuse. I am not unique. I have been there and seen what happens. I have listened to the interviews that take place in the entry clearance posts in the subcontinent. I know that the abuse is there. I know that there are people who are seeking to use the marriage route as the means by which they achieve immigration to this country.
I believe that everyone who has studied the problem on the ground returns feeling that there is still a problem to be faced, despite what the hon. Member for Halifax did in 1977.

Mr. Pitt: The right hon. Gentleman says that he knows that there is abuse. He says that he has listened to

interviews at the entry clearance stations. He presents data presented by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). Will he please tell us what is happening now?

Mr. Raison: It is not only the fact that I have visited the Indian subcontinent that leads me to know that there is abuse; every day I answer 30 or 40 letters from hon. Members about cases. Time and time again exactly the kind of problem that we are talking about comes up.
I would never say that the great majority of the marriages contracted are abusive. But I know, as no one else apart from those who have held this position knows, that the abuse of the marriage system occurs time and time again. We are entitled to tackle it.
In 1979 when the Conservatives came to office the principal safeguards were that the marriage had to take place within three months of entry and that the right to settle was deferred for a year to make sure that the marriage was enduring. In 1980 we added the requirements that the proponents should have met, that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration and that the parties intended to live together. We are now strengthening the safeguards by extending the probationary period to two years and by placing the burden of proof on those who apply to demonstrate their intentions and to show that they have met their intended wives.
We are also making it clear that, if a marriage breaks down within the two-year period, the man would normally be liable to deportation. Given that the sole basis of his stay is the fact of his marriage, it is not unreasonable that if the marriage should no longer exist he should normally go.
I come back to the question which was raised originally by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and subsequently by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) about the types of termination of marriage and whether the man would always be deported if a marriage had broken down in the first two years. My right hon. Friend and I have both already suggested that under paragrah 158 of the rules, where the marriage ended, the man would be liable to deportation, but, where there are other relevant circumstances that have to be taken into account under paragraph 156, the situation would not be covered by the new restrictions in the paragraphs and those circumstances would then be considered. The most obvious set of circumstances would be the existence of children. On top of that, in the last analysis, even where the rules say that deportation will normally be the proper course, the Home Secretary could still exercise his discretion outside the rules. My right hon. Friend has made his view about these cases clear.
When hon. Members have time to read more carefully and think about the provisions they will understand that what we are proposing is not as it has been interpreted, perhaps understandbly.
The safeguards have been attacked from two flanks: they are held to be too hard, and they are held to be ineffective. I refute flatly the allegation by the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that the safeguards are racist.
Let us consider the argument that the rules are unenforceable. In some respects we have plenty of experience in enforcing them, notably the probationary


period. But the shift in the burden of proof is new. The effect of putting the burden of proof on the applicant will be that the man must show that the disqualifications do not apply to him, but that does not mean that we are departing from the normal civil standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities. The man will not have to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt, but it will be for him to show that his application is sound and not for the officer to show why it is not.
The question has been raised of how the interviewing officers do their job, whether they be entry clearance officers overseas or immigration officers here. Of course, they are normally skilled and experienced in the task of assessing applicants and unravelling the facts. Anyone who has observed them at work will know that and will have seen how a full interview can get at the true picture and how intentions can come out during the interview.
However, the House should remember this. If in certain cases it is believed that the wrong answer has been reached, there are full rights of appeal against refusal of entry clearance. Those appeals are often successful. If necessary there can be appeals against deportation here. On top of that, as the House knows full well, there can be recourse to Ministers, who are frequently asked to look at such matters.
It is argued that the requirement that there should be a two-year probationary period before settlement is achieved by a husband is potentially especially tough. However, in essence it is not new. We have considerable experience of its operation after one year of marriage. It seems to be a workable safeguard that has not produced many especial problems in practice. The addition of a second year will strengthen that safeguard. Already in some dubious cases, we sometimes defer settlement for a further year after the first one.
It is important to remember that the tests against abuse of the marriage system are of value not just for the cases that they unearth but for the cases of bogus marriages that they deter. I think that Opposition Members will accept that, if we are to admit men for marriage, it is vital that those marriages should not simply be a way of achieving migration.
Perhaps it would help the House if I gave a little information from sub-continent posts about refusals of entry clearance to husbands and fiancés under the House of Commons rules 394 in the first 11 months of this year. In total, 511 husbands and fiancés were refused entry under the new rules. Of them 348 were on grounds that included failure to satisfy at least one of the marriage of convenience tests. The remaining 163 failed only because the wife failed the birth and citizenship test. The 348 marriage of convenience cases included 133 where the ground of refusal was that the couple had not met.
Therefore, it is evident that our safeguards have their effect. Now the onus will go on to the applicant. He is seeking an important right—the right to come and live here solely on the basis of marriage. Is it wrong that the test should be searching?
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North suggested that our new rules are more generous than the rules of other countries for the admission of husbands. He quoted from a letter that I wrote to him. Practice varies greatly from one country to another. There is no standard provision. Moreover, because each country's immigration

law is different and the problems that arise in each country are different, it is difficult to draw meaningful comparisons. However, we have obtained some information from 17 countries, including European, Commonwealth and other countries. It is not possible for me to say with certainty which countries allow a woman to bring in a husband as a matter of entitlement and which as a matter of discretion, nor am I sure how useful a distinction that is in this context, as the right may be hedged about in such a way as to restrict it considerably, whereas a discretion can be exercised generously.
However, so far as we can see, of the 17 countries a total of 12 allow husbands to enter to join women residents. In some countries there are certain requirements to be satisfied that are more or less stringent. In others, entry is invariably granted, although it is at discretion. Five countries have no general provision for admitting husbands or fiancés but one—India—allows any Commonwealth citizen to enter without an entry clearance. That would include a Commonwealth citizen or fiancé. All in all, our information does not suggest, contrary to what my hon. Friend said, that the United Kingdom is more liberal in this respect than are other countries.
I shall try to sum up the changes in the rules in this way. They build on the British Nationality Act, which has given us a far better basis than we had for firm control of immigration. They rightly rely on the new status of British citizen to define women who have the closest ties with this country. At the same time, they offer substantial safeguards against the abuse of those rules. In the context of the considerable changes that we made throughout the rules in 1980, the benefits which will flow from the 1981 Act, and the continuing objective of reduction in the settlement figures, I believe that the changes we are making now are realistic and fair to British citizen women and fully consistent with the Government's firm commitment to effective immigration control.
Therefore, our proposals tonight make sense. Do my hon. Friends really want to add themselves to the alliance and the Labour Party in chucking away this chance of resolving this problem? If so, for the sake of what do they want to do it? What do they think would happen if they defeated the rules tonight? What is it that this most improbable of all arranged marriages between my hon. Friends and the Opposition will give birth to? I can only assume that it will be another Abortion Bill.
The job that I have to do under the leadership of my right hon. Friend spans both immigration and race relations. Those two matters are intertwined, as we have always made clear. We need to control immigration very tightly, as we do. However, we also have to see that those who lawfully hold our citizenship—whatever their colour—have a sense that the country that has admitted them is a just country. We have always been a just country, and we must never let the admittedly difficult problem of immigration throw us off that.
I pointed out at the beginning of my speech the conflicting elements that we have to resolve in this whole area. I suppose that no one knows better than I do how hard it sometimes is to resolve them. I make no vainglorious claims for what we have done, but I believe that, in one way and another, we have achieved the right balance between harsh rigour and easy-goingness. That applies to individual cases and to overall policy, and I submit that it is demonstrated in our proposals today.
To those of my hon. Friends who are critical of what we are doing I say emphatically that we are not going back to the 1979 rules of the then Labour Government. I remind them, too, that immigration is falling and will continue to fall. To the House as a whole I stress that the creation of the new British citizenship gives us an opportunity to base our immigration policy more soundly and gives all our citizens an opportunity to share in the privileges and benefits which it confers.
I believe that our proposals are on the right lines, and I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 272.

Division No. 34]
[2.30 am


AYES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Adams, Allen
Deakins, Eric


Allaun, Frank
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dormand, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Dover, Denshore


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dubs, Alfred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dunlop, John


Bendall, Vivian
Dunnett, Jack


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Eastham, Ken


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Body, Richard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
English, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (Newton)


Brinton, Tim
Ewing, Harry


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Farr, John


Brotherton, Michael
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Field, Frank


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fitch, Alan


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Fitt, Gerard


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Ford, Ben


Budgen, Nick
Forrester, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ian
Fox, Marcus


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Canavan, Dennis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cant, R. B.
Freud, Clement


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ginsburg, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Golding, John


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
Graham, Ted


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cohen, Stanley
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Conlan, Bernard
Harman, Harriet (Peckham)


Cook, Robin F.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cowans, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Hawksley, Warren


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Haynes, Frank


Crawshaw, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Crowther, Stan
Heffer, Eric S.


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Homewood, William


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Howell, Rt Hon D.





Howells, Geraint
Penhaligon, David


Hoyle, Douglas
Pitt, William Henry


Huckfield, Les
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Janner, Hon Greville
Race, Reg


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Radice, Giles


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Jessel, Toby
Richardson, Jo


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robertson, George


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Knight, Mrs Jill
Ryman, John


Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Leadbitter, Ted
Sever, John


Leighton, Ronald
Sheerman, Barry


Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs Renée


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silverman, Julius


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Skinner, Dennis


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McCartney, Hugh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Snape, Peter


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


McNally, Thomas
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


McTaggart, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McWilliam, John
Stoddart, David


Magee, Bryan
Stokes, John


Marks, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Marlow, Antony
Strang, Gavin


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mikardo, Ian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Molyneaux, James
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Warden, Gareth


Morton, George
Watkins, David


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Weetch, Ken


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


Newens, Stanley
Welsh, Michael


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
White, Frank R.


Ogden, Eric
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


O'Neill, Martin
Whitlock, William


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Park, George
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (C'try SE)






Winnick, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Winterton, Nicholas



Woodall, Alec
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woolmer, Kenneth
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Wright, Sheila
Mr. John Roper.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Ancram, Michael
Fry, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Aspinwall, Jack
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gorst, John


Banks, Robert
Gow, Ian


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Best, Keith
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry


Blackburn, John
Grieve, Percy


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gummer, John Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hastings, Stephen


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Antony
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John


Butcher, John
Henderson, Barry


Butler, Hon Adam
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hooson, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Corrie, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Costain, Sir Albert
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Norman


Elliott, Sir William
Lang, Ian


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lee, John


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Le Marchant, Spencer


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Loveridge, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Luce, Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lyell, Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert





Macfarlane, Neil
Rossi, Hugh


MacGregor, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Scott, Nicholas


McQuarrie, Albert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Major, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Sims, Roger


Mates, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Smith, Dudley


Mawby, Ray
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mellor, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanley, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Martin


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Moore, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Tapsell, Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Myles, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Neale, Gerrard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Donald


Nelson, Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Neubert, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Newton, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Nott, Rt Hon John
Trippier, David


Onslow, Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Osborn, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Waddington, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wakeham, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Pawsey, James
Walker, B. (Perth)


Percival, Sir Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry
Walters, Dennis


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Warren, Kenneth


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Watson, John


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wells, Bowen


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ridsdale, Sir Julian



Rifkind, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (H.C. 1982–83, No. 66), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be disapproved.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Point of order, Mr. Roy Jenkins. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government having been deservedly defeated, will the Home Secretary now tell us what he proposes to do under the provisions of clause 3(2) of the Act, which provides for these circumstances, to bring forward resolutions, which will not be difficult, that command the support of the House.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: He should resign.

Mr. Whitelaw: If a statement of rules is disapproved by either House, section 3(2) of the Immigration Act requires the Secretary of State to make such changes or further changes in the rules as appear to him to be required in the circumstances.
The House having disapproved tonight the rules laid on 6 December, I shall make further changes in accordance with the subsection as soon as possible. In so doing, I shall endeavour to meet the wishes of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"]
The existing rules will continue in force until the end of the year. The rules contained in the statement laid on 6 December would then take effect, unless by then further changes have been made.

Cinematographs and Cinematograph Films

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I beg to move,
That the draft Films (Suspension of Quota Requirements) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 7th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which made no comments.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade is extremely disappointed that he is not speaking tonight on an order of which he would gladly claim to be the architect, as in the Government he normally carries day-to-day responsiility for the film industry.
The only, but very important, reason why my hon. Friend is not in my place now is that he had to leave for Brussels immediately after the conclusion of the last vote to attend the Council of Ministers. First on its agenda today the Council will debate and we hope come to a conclusion on inter-regional air services, which are vital to our regional airports. I know that the House will understand the circumstances that have brought about my hon. Friend's absence.
I am glad to bring the order before the House, as the regulations will alter a matter that is important for our cinema industry. Some hon. Members may be concerned about the implications of the order, and I fully understand why, but if they consider the overall situation facing our industry they will wish to approve the order.
The quota system was introduced in 1927 to encourage the growth of a viable British film industry and to protect it, mainly from a flood of American films. It required cinemas to show British films, or, since 1973, European Community films, for a percentage of their total screen time.
Originally, the percentage was 12½ per cent. In the early 1940s it was increased to 15 per cent. In 1948 it was raised to 45 per cent., but in 1949 reduced to 40 per cent. In 1950 it was again reduced, to 30 per cent., and this year it was reduced to 15 per cent. The order will suspend the quota altogether. Those figures alone give some hint of the problems facing the industries concerned.
The situation for our cinemas and film industry has changed radically since the quota was first introduced. In the late 1940s, 1,500 million people went to a cinema every year. This year the cinemas will be very lucky if they attract 65 million. At present the figure is just over 40 million—down by about 50 per cent.
In the 1940s, American film production for long films reached around 250 a year, and United Kingdom films numbered 80 to 90 a year. This year American film production looks like being something less than 100 films, and to date only 25 United Kingdom long films have been registered.
I should add to that the number of cinemas that are closing down and the number that are running at a loss. Many of the independent cinemas manage to make a small profit only by the sale of sweets and so on. Even within the circuits, a number of cinemas are being carried at a loss. The industry will not be able to do that for long. When we consider those aspects, we begin to see the extent of the crisis in our cinema industry.
It is against that background that the Government felt obliged to re-examine the quota question less than a year after the new quota was fixed at 15 per cent., when it was anticipated that it would continue for at least two years. We have come to the conclusion that in many cases the quota is unattainable, although on average 30 per cent. of films shown are still of British origin.
Last year 24 per cent. of cinemas failed to achieve their quota and no action was taken against them. Although there are penalties for failure to achieve the quota or to make a return, in practice no prosecutions are made. That is because under the Cinematograph Films Act 1960 it is a defence if the exhibitor can show that it is not commercially practicable to exercise the quota.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Vaughan: No. I intend to speak briefly, in view of the time.
The presence of the quota means that some cinemas struggling to survive and trying to achieve their quota put on films that are substandard. That is undesirable. In fact, it joins in the vicious circle of decreasing cinema attendances.
There is also the sheer administrative burden that the system imposes on the cinemas, with the need to keep a quota record book in which all details of films are shown and entered week by week, including the playing time of each film. At the end of the year these books, duly certified, are forwarded to my Department where they are checked for accuracy and quota achievement.
All this takes a monumental amount of time, money and effort. It is questionable whether it is right to add to the burdens of an industry that is already in difficulties.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister give way on this matter?

Dr. Vaughan: No, I intend to be brief, because I know that a number of hon. Members want to speak and the hour is late.
After re-examining the situation and consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, we have concluded that the economic position of the cinema is so poor that immediate action to remove the quota is essential.
Following removal, we do not expect to see any dramatic change in the showing of British films. In many ways it may help. In fact, the low, overall number of films at present available will place the British film industry in a strong position, and the favourable tax regime over the next two years should also increase the proportion of British films that can be made and shown.
I appreciate the arguments of those who wish to see a screen quota continued at a high level, but the industry must have the courage to face the changed circumstances. No one can pretend that video, cable and satellites will provide an overnight solution to the problems of the film industry, but if we can control piracy and regulate new outlets satisfactorily, that could present a real opportunity to our film industry. Equally, we do not feel that we can stand by and simply ignore the plight of our cinemas and the considerable number of people who work in them. They require help, and the suspension of the quota system is one small step that we can take to assist. I therefore commend the order to the House.

3 am

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: I cannot agree with the Minister that it is excusable for the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, who has responsibility for the film industry, to be away for the second time running when the House has considered matters that affect the film industry. The order was tabled on 7 July. It is as a result of incompetence that it has not come before the House until so near Christmas and that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade cannot be here to introduce the measure.
The Under-Secretary of State announced months ago that he was conducting a review of the film industry. He owes it to the House to explain what he is doing. The lateness of the debate cannot be regarded as an excuse, either. The film industry is being given shabby and inadequate treatment.
I was appalled that the Minister could not give way to the sensible points that would have been raised while he spoke. It is obvious to anyone who follows the subject what points would be raised. I put it to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who is muttering from a sedentary position, that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should have been here to answer for himself. I hope that he will be here next time we debate these matters.
It is less than 18 months since the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who was then Minister with responsibility for the film industry, introduced the measure which reduced the quota for first feature films in cinemas from 30 per cent. to 15 per cent. In justification of her decision, the right hon. Member for Gloucester said:
The reason I am keeping the quota … is that I wish to show some support for an industry which I accept. The way in which the film industries are being encouraged to grow is finding out how to increase the amount of money gained from the Eady levy to provide money for the industry. That is the constructive way forward.
As the Minister said, less than 18 months later, we are presented with a proposal to abolish the quota altogether, still with no sign of ways of meeting the positive needs for finance that were recognised then.
The charge that I lay against the Under-Secretary, which is reinforced by the fact that he is not here, is that he has shown a cavalier disregard for the interests of the industry in the intervening period.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Gloucester also showed that the Eady levy and other sources of finance were linked, in the Government's approach, to reducing the use of quotas and other instruments of film industry policy. The prospect of extra sources of finance was held out as a balance, to be held against the reduced protection by reducing quotas, yet we are presented with a proposal to abolish film quotas without being given any information about where the extra finance and positive policies to offset the reduction in encouragement are to come from.
What progress have the Government made in expanding the Eady levy or the sources from which it is drawn? The right hon. Member for Gloucester, as the Minister responsible for the film industry, said on 28 July 1981:
I am impressed by the arguments that exhibitors of television films, of whatever form, should contribute to the levy. I undertake—as I have undertaken to the industry—to give further consideration to this matter and consider in what way that idea


might be implemented, to the advantage of the industry as a whole."—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., 28 July 1981; c. 25.]
Having hit the industry with a stick by reducing quotas and now abolishing them, the Minister held out the carrot of extra finance. The question is, "What has happened to that promise?" Why, when quotas have been reduced and it is now proposed to abolish them, has an undertaking to examine additional finance as compensation not come forward?
The Opposition did not trust the then Minister's stick and carrot approach 18 months ago. We trust the present Minister even less. The House and the film industry have plenty of reasons for distrusting the Minister and his motives. The order was first tabled on 7 July. Since then, the Minister has announced that he is undertaking a major review of the film industry. The review has apparently been dragging on without anyone being clear what are its terms of reference, and its objectives. It is not good enough for one form of support for the film industry to be taken away without showing how this accords with an overall approach and policy. It is like lopping off a limb without showing what will be put in its place.
My mistrust and that of many hon. Members was heightened by the inspired or apparently planted leak in the Financial Times on 8 November when it was suggested that the Eady levy, far from being expanded, might even be scrapped and that the National Film Finance Corporation, instead of being expanded, might be wound up. The timing of the leak shows the insensitivity of the heavy-booted style of the present Minister.
The leak came only three weeks after the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts had published its eighth report in which it recommended the extension of the Eady levy to cover films shown on television. It also recommended the reorganisation and expansion of the role of the National Film Finance Corporation. For the leak to appear within so short a period showing that the opposite was in the mind of the Minister was, to say the least, insensitive. It showed that the House cannot take at face value any assurance that abolition of the quota fits into any positive intention to support the film industry.
If hon. Members are to judge the thinking behind the policy to abolish film quotas in cinemas, the Minister should give the House clear answers to some crucial questions. What does his review of the film industry cover? When will he make the findings public? Does he also intend to abolish the film levy, or will he extend it to cover television and video cassettes? Does he intend to wind up the National Film Finance Corporation, or will he strengthen and expand its resources and scope? Will he respond to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which deals in a refreshing and challenging manner with film industry policy?
We oppose the abolition of the film quota today for a number of reasons. First, we believe that to abolish the quota without providing in its place clear counter balancing support and positive encouragement to the film industry can only damage rather than assist the industry.
Secondly, no evidence has been produced to show that a quota of 15 per cent. or even 30 per cent. is damaging the industry as a whole or the cinemas. Indeed, in my view the distributors and cinema exhibitors have a great deal to answer for in their own unimaginative and unenterprising promotion and development over the years. They should not be allowed to get away with giving the impression that

somehow the cause of all their problems is the need to show at least 15 per cent. British films. That would imply an abysmal ability on the part of the cinema industry to sell itself.
Thirdly, it is entirely premature to abolish the quota when a major ministerial review of the film industry is already well under way. It is the total package of public policies that will matter for the industry. What I have described as a piecemeal hacking off of limbs is no way to encourage its survival and growth.
Fourthly and lastly, I oppose the abolition of quotas today because the existence of the cinema-based film quota is an important principle which needs to be considered in relation to evolving Government policy regarding the exhibition of films on conventional television and, in due course, satellite and cable television. There has been widespread concern about the Hunt report on cable systems, which said that a requirement to show a large proportion of British material was inappropriate and would seriously inhibit cable operators.
What is the Minister's position on this vital issue for the British film industry? In abolishing the film quota in cinemas he presumably believes that the quota is of no value in assisting the British film industry. I disagree with that, but if he takes that view does he take the same view of quotas or proportions of British material shown on conventional television or, in due course, on cable television?
The Hunt report on cable proposes a dangerously monopolistic combination by permitting cable companies and programme companies to be under the control of a single company. In addition, its recommendations would permit such companies to be in foreign ownership. I can think of few things so dangerous to the public interest or to the interests of the British film industry in this new and developing medium of audio-visual communication.
I have tried to explain why I believe that the abolition of quotas in cinemas now is relevant to the view implied for the future about the quota system that applies de facto in relation to television and is an important issue in relation to the evolving technology. Has the Minister assessed those matters? Will they be part of the assessment of the film industry review now taking place?
The film industry has been going through a period of turbulence, change and challenge. No one can deny—I certainly do not—that changes have been needed in many areas to reflect the changing social, economic and technological milieu of recent years. The changes required involve the various parts of the film industry itself as well as a review of Government policies. What is needed from the Government is a sense of purpose to back both the cultural and the commercial objectives of our film industry to bring together the many parts of the film, cinema, television, video and emerging cable interests to provide a new, sounder financial and regulatory base upon which to build and to make the best of the talents and opportunities available to us.
I agree that matters cannot continue as they are. Times have changed dramatically since British cinemas had audiences of 1½ billion in the 1940s. Today the figure is less than 70 million. Conventional television now dominates viewing, but already video recorders and cassettes are threatening television viewing figures as well as being a new threat to the cinema. Within two or three years, more people will he watching films on video than


in the cinema. Cable television will become a significant force during the next 10 to 15 years, or perhaps earlier. That shows the irrelevance of this order.
It will be a disaster for the film industry if the quota system is abolished this week, the levy is abolished next month and the National Film Finance Corporation is closed the month after that. All those actions will come piecemeal, one on top of the other, with no positive action and no new finance for the industry. The film industry policy requires a fundamental review. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but it must not be a review that leaves the industry in the meantime faced with a void and a period of total confusion. We now need a period for thought, at the end of which there should be a clear and positive set of proposals that offer support and action.
This order is ill-timed and irrelevant to the real needs of the film industry. I urge the Minister to put away the hatchet and to bring before Parliament comprehensive and forward-looking proposals that measure up to the needs of the future of what should be a thriving film industry.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I wholehear-tedly support the order before us tonight, because, although I yield to no one in my desire to see a viable British film industry, I am concerned that there should also be a successful and vigorous cinema and film exhibiting industry. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) used the word "irrelevant" to describe the order, but he should have applied that word to the quota, which has become more and more irrelevant in past years.
There was a time when the cinema attracted massive audiences. At that time, a proportion of the films shown meant, more or less, a proportion of the audiences. It does not mean that today. People go to the cinema now much less frequently and they are far more discriminating. They choose the films that they wish to see and the deciding factor is not whether the film is made in Britain, on the Continent or in the Unied States of America. The important factor is whether the film offers the entertainment or pleasure that the individual who is going out for the evening is prepared to leave his home to seek.
Britain can and does provide films that are the equal of those produced anywhere in the world. However, those who are best qualified to judge which films will meet the needs of the local audience are the exhibitors in the area. I am advised that the cinematograph exhibitors wholeheartedly support tonight's order. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley spoke about the abolition of the quota, but I am not sure whether that is what we are discussing. We are talking only about a suspension of the order. However, I ask for its abolition as soon as possible.
We have learned in one industry after another that it is the task of British industry to produce goods that are saleable in direct competition with those produced elsewhere. To try to provide an artificially protected market is likely to have only a depressing effect on the quality of the product. We have seen that in more than one industry.
The British film industry can meet the challenge that is placed upon it. Perhaps there are cultural and social reasons why the film industry must survive. Perhaps there are reasons beyond simple commercial viability. If that is so, we should look to the financing of the production of

films and not place restrictions on the exhibitors who are already having a difficult enough time in attracting audiences into their cinemas.
The order is sound and sensible. It shows that the Government understand the social changes that have taken place over the years. It reflects the fact that we have confidence in the British film industry and that its future success is dependent on its ability to compete on its own merits.

Mr. Bryan Magee: The order does no more than come to terms with the inevitable. I shall go further and say that it comes to terms with an already existing situation, as the Minister conceded in some of his remarks.
As the Minister reminded us, the quota has existed since 1927, but its flourishing years were very different years for the cinema from today. When you and I were young, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cinema programmes were customarily about three hours long. In addition to the major feature, there was a supporting feature and then often a travelogue, a newsreel, a cartoon and perhaps even a documentary—it was normal for there to be half a dozen elements in a standard cinema programme. Most of the major feature films that were shown were American, but the British quota was always made up substantially of that supporting material.
The nub of the problem is the change in programming, so that we now just have the main film and often little else—in fact quite often nothing else, except a few advertisements. Programmes of the kind that the British quota used to help fill year after year have for the most part ceased to be shown in our cinemas.
There was never a mass audience in many parts of the country for a large number of major British features. We have always produced some feature films that were as good and popular as any others, but we have never come remotely near producing as many as the demand in our own country called for.
I detected awareness of all this behind some of the Minister's remarks. When there was no longer the British material to fill the quota that the public would go and watch, the imposition of the quota started keeping audiences away. It was a paradox: a measure that had been introduced to promote and foster the British film industry started doing the industry positive damage and accelarating its decline.
In recent years the quota requirement has been flagrantly disregarded. The law has simply been broken in many areas. The Minister showed that he was aware of that, and indeed acknowledged that it was policy not to prosecute in such cases. Cinemas and other exhibitors have also resorted to legal ways of getting round the law, for example by turning themselves into clubs, which is increasingly common nowadays, and one of the reasons for which is that it frees the exhibitor from the quota requirements. We have reached the point where the quota is at best irrelevant and at worst positively harmful.
The ACTT is in favour of preserving the quota, but that only shows the short-sighted protectionism that often characterises trade unions in a difficult period. In other industries, too, trade unions get into the same vicious circle of trying to encounter a recession with protectionism, which results in loss of competitiveness, which accelerates still further the recession, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said.
The way out of the situation is to encourage growth in the film industry. The key to this is the financing of films. We are already seeing the beginning of a renaissance in the industry. In the past year or two we have turned out magnificent films in increasing numbers.
The one event that could transform the situation more than any other is the opening of Channel 4. My information is that it plans to commission about 40 feature films a year and that it has already put the first year's worth into commission. That will transform the employment situation in the entire industry. It is far more important than maintaining the quota. More can be done in other directions, too, such as refurbishing cinemas. The industry is increasingly aware of that.
So I support the measure. The quota is irrelevant, and indeed could profitably be abolished.
But I also support what the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) said about cable. That is where we really need a quota. If we do not have a quota for cable we shall be swamped by American rubbish. The major American film producers could not believe their eyes when they saw the Hunt report. They could not believe their luck. Not even America's closest geographical neighbours and economic dependants, such as Mexico and Canada, are laying themselves open to the cable-colonisation tht the Hunt report recommends. It would be disastrous for the Government to go down that road.
A final point. If, as the order proposes, the collection of statistics about the industry is suspended, will there still be provision for the ongoing flow of hard factual information which is fundamentally important to the industry? I urge the Minister to make alternative provision for the continued flow of statistical information.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I support the Minister in suspending the quota. It is in an overdue act. For some time the quota has not helped the exhibition of films.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) stressed the need for total reform of the British film industry. I thank him for his compliments on the Select Committee report. I am proud of it. I believe that we achieved something with that report.
I welcome the Minister's review of the film industry. There are many problems which involve more than his Department. We have to look at the responsibility of broadcasting the Department of Educations responsibility for films and the disparate branches of the NFFC and the CFC. The problems must be solved in a way which will suit the end of the twentieth century. The industry grew like Topsy in its early years, and all the regulations are out of date.
I am not in favour of a British film authority, but I am in favour of making the Eady money realistic. That means charging the audiences that have left cinema and watch films on the television or video cassettes, and who will in the future watch them on cable. That will have to be done if the Eady money is to be of any use.
I cannot agree with the view that the Eady levy must continue at its present level and be obtained from the cinemas. That will not provide enough money to sustain a proper British film industry.
I ask that the review should pay attention to what is probably the gravest problem facing the British film industry. I am on the periphery of the production side and know that the film producer finds it difficult to relate to

the skilled merchant banker in the city. A bridge must be built between those two if we are to have satisfactory investment. There are signs, not least in the Goldcrest company, that that is beginning to be done in a sensible way. It is something that we must foster if we are to have a viable film production industry.
I hope that the quota will be suspended. However, do not let us act in a piecemeal fashion. Let us act consistently.

Mr. Tom Clarke: It is true, as has been said by almost every speaker in the debate, that the British film industry is facing difficult times. However, anyone who imagines that the suspension or abolition of quotas will solve the problem is misguided.
Many people who have given their lives to the British film industry and those who want to see the growth of cinemas are anxious about what is happening in Great Britain today. The pattern does not encourage those of us who are interested in films and the cinema.
We had 102 cinemas in Scotland in 1980. This year there are fewer than 100. Last week the closure was announced of the only cinema in my constituency. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) the one cinema that serves people within a 50-mile radius was about to close but it was saved by the excellent efforts of the community at Newton Stewart. The community did its utmost to make the cinema available.
I congratulate local authorities, such as mine in Monklands district, which are attempting to expand their mobile cinema service to replace the cinemas which are being lost because of the present patterns in the film industry.
The quotas go back for some time and they have varied over the years. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was President of the Board of Trade, the quota stood at 45 per cent. That was helpful, and I understand that there was no disagreement about it at that time.
In our last debate in July we were promised that there would be a review in the autumn. I and other hon. Members understood that it would be a global review. However, no such review has taken place. Tonight we are presented with a unilateral action which may please some sections of the industry—certainly those who are responsible for exhibiting films—but it will not please the people on the production side. Although exhibitors may feel that this will be an end to foreign films, bureaucracy, and so on, the fact is that unless we commit ourselves to production, and unless we believe that there is a strategy that will lead to a greater production of films—British films, in particular—they will face problems that they do not envisage at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) properly referred to the article in the Financial Times of 8 November and to other suggestions that have been made, as far afield as the United States, where in the magazine "Variety" it was said that the Minister apparently feels that there is a case for removing the Eady levy. In the absence of the promised review, the House is entitled to know the Government's intentions. A decision to abolish the Eady levy would have substantial and—to many people—unacceptable consequences. It would have a sizeable influence on the activities of bodies such as the British Film Institute and the National Film


Finance Corporation itself, in a year in which we have been proud of production of films such as "Gregory's Girl". It should be remembered that that film would not have been possible if it had not been for the Eady levy. There are other implications, not least for the National Film School. That school does a first-class job. We should not leave those people in doubt about their future and about their contribution to the British film industry. I hope, therefore, that the matter will be clarified as soon as possible.
I had some difficulty in following the argument of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who suggested—if I understood him correctly—that if we remove quotas we remove the possibility of inferior products. The argument was taken up by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee). Having supported that argument in respect of films, the hon. Member for Leyton then argued for the same policy to be applied to cables. I see no logic in that. However, we are entitled to say that quotas were introduced and sustained over the years. There are some good British films. If we have no protection—incidentally, we would be one of the few countries in Europe to deny ourselves that right—some good British films will not see the light of day. The market will be flooded with American films, and no one will convince me that all American films are of high quality.
The other day the magazine "Film Directions" said, and it is important to draw it to the attention of the House:
Unfair comparisons have, in the past, been made with the renascent German Film Industry, the newly established Australian Industry and the emerging New Zealand Industry. A new lease of life needs to be urgently injected into the British Industry—the Levy, on its own, will not do this—and new policies need to be quickly formulated or else we will all be talking and writing about the British Film Industry in the past tense".
I do not disagree with that.
We must all consider the British film industry to be important. I take into account the views expressed by my hon. Friend the member for Batley and Morley. A Select Committee has made a recommendation about ministerial responsibility. There have been great areas here which have not been helpful either to the House or to the industry. I hope that the review of the British film industry will take place in the near future. I am sure that the House will remember that there are many organisations and individuals who have given a great deal to the success of that industry.
In conclusion, I say that the Scottish film archive has a clip of an interview with the late Scottish comedian, Will Fyfe. He related how, while he was in the United States, he had had to undergo an operation. He said that when he awoke afterwards he looked around the room and saw that all the curtains had been drawn. So Will Fyfe turned to the surgeon and asked what was the meaning of that. The surgeon said that while he was operating the hotel across the road had caught fire and they had not wanted him to wake from the operation thinking that it had not been a success.
I fear that when the Minister and his colleagues awake to what they have been attempting to do tonight they may well feel that they have been fundamentally unsuccessful. However, I still urge them to undertake the global review of the British film industry which I believe will be essential to its growth and its success.

Mr. Clement Freud: I support the words of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). All hon. Members will recognise that the British film industry has produced some of the great films of the world. We have recently produced in "Chariots of Fire" and "Gregory's Girl" two of the best films in recent years.
I had not intended to involve myself deeply in the debate. However, as the Minister did not give way, and as he began by saying that the order is important for the future of our cinema industry, I thought that I might just say a few words. The order is not important for the future of our cinema industry. What is important for the future of our cinema industry is for the Government to support and encourage it. What always happens is that a Government appoint one of their elder statesmen to head a committee and by the time he reports the other party has got in and takes no notice of what that elder statesman has said. May I suggest that if the Minister is to set up a committee he might appoint as chairman a Member of the Liberal or Social Democratic Parties? In which case, the Government will take notice of it when it reports.

Mr. Ron Lewis: What Government?

Mr. Freud: The next Government.

Mr. Lewis: What will be their political complexion?

Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman should wait until he can see the political complexion of the next Government.
My point is that the order is not important for the future of our cinema industry because the quota has been flagrantly disregarded and nobody has ever been fined for doing so. The sheer administrative burden might well be there, but if someone does not fill in his forms in triplicate and xerox 32 more copies to send to whomever, there is no prosecution either. Therefore, we are fiddling with something that is astonishingly unimportant.
The argument in favour of a quota has tended to be that nowadays people go to the cinema to see blockbusters. A few people go to see whatever is on. While cinemas stagger from one mediocrity to another waiting for the blockbuster, such mediocre films as they show may just as well be British. That is a resonable argument in favour of a quota. I do not think that we shall insist on it, because I am sure that it is right to say that the quota is not important. However, it is important that the cinema should have support.
When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will make two announcements. First, I hope that he will tell us what will happen to the Eady levy? I believe that the whole House agrees that it is important that it should be retained and that it should have the Government's support. Secondly, will the Minister talk to us not about the quota for cinemas—which is reasonably irrelevant—but about whether the quota for cable television is to be invoked and helped?

Dr. Vaughan: I shall reply briefly, while endeavouring to answer as many questions as possible. However, I undertake to answer in writing any points that I miss out if hon. Members so wish.
The debate has been thoughtful, important and certainly constructive. It has shown clearly that, while several hon. Members support the suspension of the quota and some hon. Members would prefer its abolition, there is a general


feeling that we need—as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) said—to take a global view of the film and cinema industry. The Government accept that. However, I do not accept the references made by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) to the absence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. On reflection, he may consider some of his remarks to have been misplaced. I was rather disappointed that he largely concentrated on the problems of the film industry. Those problems are real, but we are discussing the problems of the cinema.
I agree that the film industry is in trouble, although it is nothing like the immediate troubles that we face with the cinema industry. I was very glad when my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) put the debate into perspective once more. We were in danger of discussing the film industry and forgetting the subject of tonight's debate.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley rightly referred to the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), and to her examination of the issue in 1980. He will know that she seriously considered at that time the suspension of the quota. Because of the uncertainty of the views put to her then—which we do not receive today—she decided that the quota should be continued, at least for the time being.
I imagine that the House will want to debate the Eady levy and other aspects of the film industry at a later date, because a full debate is required for that. However, last year the Eady levy raised £6 million. Currently, the figure is about £4·3 million. We think that the 1982–83 figure will be as low as £3·5 million. This is directly related to the fall in attendances and the problems of the cinema. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that because of the need for the levy and the falling figures we must take the matter seriously and examine the financing of the film industry, I agree with him. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade is undertaking this and is as anxious as anyone that it should be completed as quickly as possible. It will be a global review.
For various practical reasons, I had to agree to the delay of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I regretted that very much, because it is most important that we assemble the information and get on with whatever steps are necessary.
I welcomed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, who referred to the need to avoid artificial protection. He referred to financing. The financing of films has changed. For example, films such as "Superman" and "The Empire Strikes Back", which come within the quota, are internationally financed films with a guaranteed distribution and would not benefit from the quota.

Mr. Woolmer: Before the Minister finishes discussing the cinema part of the industry, what are the Government's intentions about the levy? If he seeks to assist the cinemas, it is logical that he will seek to abolish the levy. One could not abolish the levy, to help the cinema without damaging the rest of the film industry. There is a connection between what one does for the cinema and what one does elsewhere. Do the Government intend to abolish the levy or do they intend to go along the route of the Select Committee to widen the levy and overcome this gross

injustice whereby hundreds of millions of viewers every year watch television and see films virtually for nothing while in the cinema a smaller number of people pay that financial contribution towards developing a film industry which enables the films to be produced? What do the Government intend to do?

Dr. Vaughan: I was about to say, before the hon. Gentleman intervened, how glad I was to hear the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) in his rather mixed continents, referring to "Chariots of Fire" and the excellence of our film industry. It is that type of skill that has attracted so much money from other parts of the world into our film industry and makes it so artificial to have an imposed formal quota.
With regard to the Eady levy and the review of policy, it is clear that hon. Members have seen some of the dramatic press reports on the subject which have suggested that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had decided to abolish the levy. That is not the position. It was merely one of a wide range of options that have been put to him, including the option of extending the levy to television and video. My hon. Friend will be happy to have representations from those who have the benefit of professional experience. He asked me to make that clear to the House. I know also that he hopes to reach some conclusions early next year. We must get on with it urgently.
Several hon. Members have referred to cable and the quota. As they will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on 2 December that the Government were giving the matter serious consideration but had not yet come to any conclusions.

Mr. Woolmer: The Minister has referred to quotas on cable. Although this may be the ministerial responsibility of the Home Secretary, it is clearly important to the film industry. Is the Minister with responsibility for the film industry expressing a view on behalf of the industry to the Home Secretary? If he is, what is that view? The House has a right to know and I am sure that the industry has too. Does the Minister have a view on television and cable quotas?

Dr. Vaughan: I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot go further than that which I have said tonight. During the debate on cable systems on 2 December my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the issue would be studied by the Government and the House with the greatest care.
The hon. Member for Leyton talked about statistics. I understand that none of the regular flow of statistics is exclusively dependent on the quota system. The Eady levy system, for example, provides a number of important figures. The cinema inquiry, which is carried out annually by the Business Statistics Office, provides the material in the Business Monitor. It is important that we know what is happening in the industry.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie referred, rightly, to the problems of the National Film School. We are conscious of them and this is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made special provision for its part of the quota to take priority over the other beneficaries' quotas. This is another matter that will form part of his general review.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend say that he was not in favour of a British Film


Authority, because nor are we. We agree that it is essential for the film industry to develop new ways of encouraging private investment. The more that we can encourage it in that direction the better.
This has been a wide-ranging and constructive debate. I shall be glad to take up any matters that I have overlooked. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Freud: If the Minister wishes to be constructive and to help the cinema industry, will he announce here and now that the overwhelming burden of administration which he believes cinema owners and exhibitors carry in completing his forms will be scrapped as from now instead of from some date next year?

Dr. Vaughan: We are discussing a measure that suspends the quota. I do not feel that hon. Members would want me suddenly to go further than the measure that is before us.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Films (Suspension of Quota Requirements) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 7th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Companies

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I beg to move,
That the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1653), a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.
The regulations make only quite minor amendments to the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981, which came into operation on 26 February 1982. They have nothing to do with the wider issues of company registration. The Companies Act 1981 included powers to prescribe by regulation a list of sensitive words and expressions which it would be undesirable to have used in the name of a company without the Secretary of State's approval. The regulations before the House add "chemist" and "chemistry" to the list. They were omitted from the original regulations because it was believed that their use was controlled by the Medicines Act.
However, in another place representations were made by Lord Hanworth and Lord Halsbury, which showed that the Act related to the use of the words in a pharmaceutical sense, but not necessarily when they were used in a scientific or industrial context. We agree with the noble Lords, and that is why the words are being added to the list.
The regulations also add to the list the words "university" and "polytechnic". This is at the request of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and will enable control to be exercised where the use of these words might imply association with a recognised university or a designated polytechnic. However, there may be cases where the use of these words in a company or business name would not be objectionable, for example in "University Hotel" or something of that kind.
Finally, there is a further minor amendment which corrects an error in the wording of the original regulations. The relevant body whose opinion is to be sought by persons intending to use the word "apothecary" was given as "Worshipful Company of Apothecaries", whereas this should have read
Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London".
The regulation will correct the error.
These are only minor amendments and I hope that the House will accept them.

Mr. John Fraser: I have no objection to the regulations, but I have two comments to make. First, it seems to me that since the abolition of general control on similar names by the Companies Act 1981, one now has one rule for the Government and the Establishment, and another for the rest of those who want to form companies. In short, if one is part of the Establishment, a university, a polytechnic or one of the learned or professional societies, one has one's name protected. One has to get the approval of the Secretary of State for the use of the name if the word is "chemist" or involves other such matters. The Government similarly protect many interests by ensuring that prior approval is given to the name before it is used by a company.
There may be others who properly wish to see their commercial interests protected, but cannot afford the now blossoming services of company search agents, who run a regular search through the Register of Companies to see


whether other companies are using the proposed name. That strikes me as being unfair between one and another, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House whether any difficulty has emerged from the abolition of the general control which the registrar used to exercise over similar names.

Dr. Vaughan: Perhaps it will help the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that no problems on this have been brought to my attention.

Mr. Fraser: Secondly, what sort of reaction has the Minister had on the abolition of the Register of Business Names? I appreciate that this is a slightly different point, but the indications that I have had are of a grave disappintment on the part of financial journalists, company registration agents, and many others, particularly some consumer groups, at the loss of protection that has resulted. What information is the Minister receiving?

Dr. Vaughan: Subject to your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have thought that that last point was probably out of order. However, I should be pleased to write to the hon. Member about it, and we can discuss it on another occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Shipley Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.)

Mr. Marcus Fox: My purpose in raising the question of the closure of the Shipley hospital is quite simple. There is deep anxiety and concern among the vast majority of my constituents at this proposal. In my 12 years as a Member of Parliament, no other issue has caused such an outrage as this, as illustrated by the 25,000-name petition that I presented to the Minister of State recently.
I do not blame my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for these circumstances. He is a friend of long standing, and I know that if this event happened in Hampstead, and he was not a Minister, he would be standing in my place raising these points because I know that he cares about his constituents.
The proposal emanates from the Bradford area health authority, which is composed of local people who ought to know better. Shipley has always prided itself on being an entity. That was prior to local government reorganisation, and local independence took a body blow when that occurred.
A number of other services have been removed over the years, such as the ambulance service, highways and the maternity home. The feeling now is that enough is enough.
Many years ago, two benefactors provided two hospitals, one being Sir Titus Salt, a Member of Parliament, who created a hospital and a village. As if that was not sufficient, the inhabitants collected enough money, not just to provide a third hospital but to buy the land as well. Had it not been for the 1939–45 war, Shipley would have had a third hospital.
The National Health Service created in 1945 put a stop to that, and these assets were appropriated. No one would have thought that an area that could have had three hospitals would today be in danger of being left without one, despite assurances given by the Bradford area health authority as recently as 1979, when the old Salt hospital was closed and it was decided to move it to the old maternity home.
The assurances were given to the doctors in Shipley and Baildon, and the area health authority stated:
In considering the usage of this hospital, it would probably have been possible to concentrate the facilities at the larger acute hospitals in the district, thus bringing Shipley into the same relationship with the Health Services as other parts of the urban area. However, this would result in a diminution of health services in the locality, and it is accepted that the services provided at Sir Titus Salt's Hospital has been of the greatest value to the local population and that the aim should be to preserve the type of service developed.
The district health authority must have believed that, because it has spent £250,000 over the last four years on this hospital. Only a few days ago, the completion of a new lift was achieved.
It is not too strong to say that to remove an asset of this kind, having spent that sort of money, is not far short of vandalism. It is no wonder that my constituents are asking what the Health Service is about. Surely it is about the treatment of illness and the care of patients. People should be nursed back to health, which as far as possible should occur in the surroundings of their choice. It is hard to envisage a hospital that deserves the title community


hospital more than Shipley. Every doctor in Shipley and Baildon can confirm that. Hence their utter opposition to the proposals.
I have received hundreds of letters on the subject. The ones that touch me most are those from the elderly who have had personal experience of the hospital. When I speak as strongly as I can against the proposals, it is necessary to understand the people whom I represent. Many of them have spent all their lives in the area. Never have they had the good fortune to earn the average industrial wage, never mind being well paid. They have been thrifty, law abiding and hard working, most of them having been employed in textiles and engineering. To many of them, car ownership is a dream that has never been fulfilled. That is why the removal of the Shipley hospital would be a tragedy. The cost of travelling to St. Luke's hospital or to the Bradford royal infirmary would be exorbitant, not to mention the inconvenience.
What does the hospital do? It was opened only some three ago to replace the old Salt hospital. It provides 23 beds. I understand that the occupancy last year increased by some 12 per cent. Last year, 11,699 out-patients were treated—an increase of some 70 per cent. on the previous year. I could list all of the other services such as X-ray, the thousands of people who were given physiotherapy and post-operative care. I understand Government policy. It is that high technology hospitals should complement community-based ones. I can do no better than quote from a consultation paper that was issued by the previous Minister of State who is now the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I was delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box recently. It is a pity that he is not here to hear what he said. In the foreword, he said:
Yet there is a real risk of concentrating services more heavily than the advantages strictly justify, to the detriment of other considerations such as the accessibility of hospitals to patients and visitors, and the sense of identity which many local communities have with their local hospital.
The Minister continued in the consultation paper called "The future pattern of hospital provision in England":
Hospital policy for the 1960s and 1970s was to concentrate hospital services in major hospitals with only a limited range of services remaining in small local ('community') hospitals. It is proposed that this policy be changed to place less emphasis on the centralisation of services in very large hospitals and to allow for the retention of a wider range of local facilities.
I would love to quote even more. The National Health Service cannot afford to lose assets which are suitable for those patients who do not need the full panoply of investigation and treatment.
My hon. Friend's document continued:
The Government has already made clear its wish to retain small hospitals wherever sensible and practicable, though recognising that some closures of old, inefficient or badly situated units are necessary.
By no stretch of the imagination could Shipley hospital fall into that category.
My hon. Friend knows that I do not oppose the control of public spending. It must be controlled in line with what we can afford. Therefore, I cannot disagree with the ceiling of expenditure that has been given to the Bradford health authority. My resentment lies in the idea that to save £200,000 in 1983–84, Shipley hospital must close. A saving of £200,000 out of a total budget of £48 million?
Someone must be joking. It represents less than 0·5 per cent. of the total. Are we to believe that this is the only way in which that sum can be saved?
I realise that the time has not yet arrived for the Minister to have this issue on his desk. I do not expect his reply to reveal much. I think, however, that I have every right to ask my hon. Friend to examine carefully the options that are available. I select one example of where savings can be made. In the budget of £48 million, the sum for domestic cleaning is £2,655,389. That is not to mention porterage of £935,000 or laundry and linen costing another £1,072,000. These are the figures in the budget announced by the health authority. It is known that private contractors can perform this work at an average saving of at least 20 per cent. If one-third of the cleaning services were put out to such contractors, Shipley hospital could stay open. There may have have to be redundancies. I am not suggesting that the switch from the public to the private sector will not mean one or two. However, there will be redundancies if Shipley hospital is closed. I would prefer that redundancies should not occur in the active area of the Health Service among nurses but rather among ancillary workers.
In the last few days, a new hospital has opened in Redhill. A major award worth £200,000 has gone to a private contractor. The chairman of the health authority has stated:
Our decision to appoint a private contractor was based on price and performance.
The private contractor
was the lowest tenderer—considerably below the in-house quotation—and has been satisfactorily cleaning the existing Redhill General Hospital for at least a generation. The savings are thought to be about £50,000 a year".
Is my hon. Friend able to confirm these figures for savings? Will he contemplate issuing a circular giving guidance to health authorities on their responsibilities? Will the Minister make allowances for slippage, if that is the right word, in 1983–84 if district authorities need extra time to sort out financial problems on the basis that privatisation will save money? In the long term, patients would not suffer. Some guidance from the Department would not go amiss. A number of people would be willing to contribute in terms of feasibility studies.
I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that there is no truth in the statement that the Bradford health authority is under-funded. A figure of £3 million in terms of RAWP has been supplied to me. What is even more worrying from Bradford's point of view is that the Leeds area, it seems, has done far better.
Another area worthy of examination is departmental budgets. Surgeons and doctors would not be averse to guidance on economies. I am concerned deeply about the costs involved in the prescription of drugs. The figures are contained in the budget that I have received. Is it necessary, when patients are discharged, always to prescribe for 14 days rather than for seven? There are those more qualified to decide than myself. I feel, however, that clinical freedom may have gone too far when the only means of making economies is the prospect of closing a hospital such as I have described.
Every area of expenditure should be examined—maternity services, early discharge, use of beds, and so on. The so-called savings from closing Shipley hospital may well be illusory. The district might achieve savings on paper, but higher costs will certainly be passed on to the region. It must be a matter of concern


to the central organisation that if savings are made in one area one cannot simply forget that higher charges may be passed on somewhere else. One need only consider the ambulance service to realise that higher costs must result from the closure of community hospitals such as the one that I have described.
The Secretary of State is on record within the last year as saying that due to the enormous expansion in the elderly population in the next two decades a redistribution of financial resources should be made in the Health Service, away from acute surgical services to allow for expansion of services for the care of the elderly.
The case for Shipley hospital is the same case that was made some time ago for Tunbridge Wells. In the May 1982 issue of "Health Care Trends" the case was forcefully made that a district health care plan can be based on a number of community hospitals in conjunction with the high technology hospitals.
We look to the Minister and to the Department to consider not only the Bradford health authority's proposals but all the other options available. The alternative is not simply to close surgical wards, as, I understand, the Bradford health authority suggests. That is the last thing I want. Administration conjures up all kinds of possibilities, but I return to my appeal for specific savings. I know that people in the Health Service are aware of the need to economise. Nevertheless, waste occurs and an overall saving of 2 per cent. could certainly be achieved by the Bradford health authority without any loss of services.
There is a feeling that consultation is perhaps not so thorough as it should be. My purpose in applying for this debate—in good time, before the consultation period ends on 7 January—is to alert the Department to the deep anxiety that has already been aroused by the recommendations. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep this matter in perspective, as £200,000 is small beer compared with the total budget, and a hospital should certainly not be closed for financial reasons alone.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) for giving me the chance to say something about the future of Shipley hospital. I pay tribute to the informed, responsible and effective way in which he has sought to represent the views and interests of his constituents at this unearthly hour.
I know that there has been enormous local concern about the proposal by Bradford health authority to close the hospital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health was presented recently with a petition containing some 25,000 signatures, and the Department has received a number of letters from local bodies and organisations as well as from members of the public who are my hon. Friend's constituents.
I should begin by making it quite clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has said, neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been asked at this stage to take any final decision about the future of Shipley hospital. At present, Bradford health authority is consulting widely on a number of proposals which it has considered to enable it to live within its means in the future. Among these are the proposed closure of Thornton

View hospital, Queensbury, with its 82 beds for mainly elderly patients and the proposed closure of the 23-bedded Shipley hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Before dealing with the particular circumstances of Shipley hospital and the specific and imported points that my hon. Friend has raised, it is important to outline the procedures under which proposals of this kind are considered.
In general, the responsibility for determining the closure or change of use of health buildings rests with the appropriate district health authority. If, having regard to its long-term strategy for the provision of health services and the resource outlook, a district health authority considers the closure or change of use of a facility to be necessary, it must initiate formal consultations. In that event, the procedures require the authority to prepare a consultation document covering such matters as the reason for its proposals, an evaluation of the possibilities of using the facilities for other purposes or the disposal of the site, implications for the staff, the relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments and plans and the transport facilities for those patients who might be affected by the proposals.
The district health authority then invites comments on the proposals contained in the document, within three months, from such bodies as the community health councils, local authorities, staff organisations, family practitioner committees and local advisory committees, including the local medical committees. Hon. Members whose constituencies are affected are also informed of the proposals. That is the stage reached with Shipley hospital and, as my hon. Friend said, Bradford health authority has issued a consultation document and is seeking comments by 7 January.
Before considering some of the issues behind the Bradford proposals, it might be helpful if I explained the next steps in the closure or change of use procedure. When the comments on proposals in the consultation document have been received, the district health authority must then seek the community health council's views on the comments and its own observations on those comments. The authority then reviews its original proposals in the light of the comments received and, unless there is strong local opposition—from what my hon. Friend said, there is likely to be opposition—it could implement its original proposals, provided that the community health council agrees. The regional health authority and my Department would be informed of the decision.
However, if the community health council objects to the authority's proposals, it is required to submit to the authority a constructive and detailed counter-proposal, paying full regard to the factors, including the resource outlook, that led the authority to make its original proposal. The matter must then be referred to the regional health authority. If the regional health authority is unable to accept the views of the community health council and wishes to proceed with the closure or change of use, it falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take the final decision. Therefore, I repeat—my hon. Friend was good enough to make the point—that nothing I say today should be construed as prejudging the issue, on which the consultation procedures that I have described are still in progress.
It may be helpful if I say something about the financial position of Bradford health authority. The district's revenue allocation in the current financial year, as my hon.
Friend said, is £46 million. While the district is assessed by the regional health authority still to be about 7 per cent. below its RAWP target, this year's allocation represents a growth in real terms of about 1½ per cent. over 1981–82. That is a clear demonstration of the reckless rhetoric and nonsense that we hear so often from hon. Members on the now empty Opposition Benches when they talk about cuts in the NHS and the NHS being starved of funds. No amount of untrue statements from the Labour Party can get away from the fact that we are now spending 5½ per cent. more in real terms on the NHS than when we took office.
Of course, health authorities are required to contain their expenditure within the notified cash limits. If they fail to do that in any year, they naturally erode their financial position for future years. Therefore, the need to maintain strict controls on expenditure is paramount, but is well accepted throughout the NHS.
During the autumn the Bradford health authority, taking stock of its financial position, concluded that if it were to fund all the proposals in its operational plan in full and at the same time meet its share of the additional costs of the current pay awards, there would be an anticipated shortfall of income against recurring expenditure in the 1983–84 financial year of some £1 million. In the light of that potential deficit, the authority has been reviewing the proposals in its operational plan, as well as the current levels of provision being supported in the district.
My hon. Friend has suggested a number of interesting possible alternative ways in which the necessary

economies might be made to allow Shipley hospital to remain open. I was particularly interested in the points he raised about the prospects for contracting out cleaning services in the district; for the tighter control of expenditure on drugs; and also for the prospects of selling health centres to general practitioners thereby making them owner-occupiers rather than health authority tenants. He put forward a number of matters and they will all receive serious consideration.
I am sure also that the community health council will be taking account of those and other points in framing any counter-proposals to the consultation document which it may put forward. I shall in any event ask the Bradford health authority to look carefully into those points which my hon. Friend raised when it comes to consider the comments which have been made on the document.
I must reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for the constructive approach that he has adopted, which is what I expect of him after 30 years's friendship.
Should the matter be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the future for a final decision—I have told my hon. Friend the steps that must be taken before that happens—we shall certainly all be better informed as a result of today's debate.
I assure my hon. Friend that everything that he has said will be taken carefully into account before my right hon. Friend makes any final decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Five o' clock.